LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

Shelf... 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



CALVINISM 



Contrary to God's Word 



AND 



MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



BY 



D. FISK HARRIS. 



"It is too frequent a custom of many readers to applaud or censure a book very 
highly, according to the opinion it favors, not according to the reason or argu- 
ment it produces. If the opinion be agreeable to the sentiments and language 
of any particular party which the reader has chosen, the arguments, though 
ever so common or trifling, are pronounced strong and cogent. On the other 
hand, if the opinion happen to be near akin to those of a contrary sect, then the 
arguments brought to support it are all trifling. The author is a heretic, 
and therefore his reasonings must needs be all weak and insufficient if not, 
dangerous and destructive." — Isaac Watts. 




Copyrighted and Published by the Author. 

1890. 



THE LIBRARY 
Of C ONGR ESS 

I WASHINGTON 



C, 



Electrotyped and Printed by 
Woman's Temperance Publishing Association, 
161 La Salle St., Chicago. 



PREFACE. 



The title of this work sufficiently explains the author's 
purpose. How far he has succeeded, the candid reader must 
judge. 

Were it not for the conviction that each generation must 
examine for itself the foundations upon which its faith rests ; 
that the times demand a reinvestigation of the cardinal prin- 
ciples of theology, and that he has something to say on these 
important themes, the author would not have obtruded himself 
upon the attention of the public. 

A few words concerning the methods employed. Calvinism 
has been, and even now is, so variously interpreted, that it has 
been deemed necessary to devote not a few pages to its legiti- 
mate exposition. Knowing that it is easy to misrepresent an 
opponent by carelessly quoting his opinions, the author has 
verified the greater number of references. Where this was 
impossible he has taken them from reliable sources. 

The arguments against Calvinism are cumulative. While 
each chapter combats a specific fallacy or unscriptural position, 
the reader is requested to waive his decision for or against the 
work until h®has fairly considered the aggregated results. 

The work is necessarily polemical. Yet the author joy- 
ously remembers the holy character and unceasing Christian 
activities of his theological opponents. He would say in the 
words of John Wesley, " Though we can not think alike, may 
we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we 
are not of one opinion ? " 

Harmar, Ohio. 



CONTENTS. 

PART I. 

Page- 

What is Calvinism ? - - - - - 1 1 

CHAPTER I. 

Calvinism and Augustinianism the same in their Essen- 
tial Characteristics, - - - - 14 

CHAPTER II. 

Are God's Decrees Conditioned on His Foreknowledge, 1 7 

CHAPTER III. 
Is God Able to Prevent Sin ? - - - 31 

CHAPTER IV. 

Why are the Finally Impenitent Lost? Is it Because 

God Can not save Them ? - - - - 41 

PART II. 

Calvinism Contrary to God's Word, - ' - 53 



CHAPTER I. 

Calvinism Teaches a Limited Atonement, - - 55 

Section i. Terms Denned— The Problem Stated, - 56 
Section ii. Concessions of Calvinists — Illustrating 

Certain Passages of Scripture, - 61 
Section hi. Are the Gospel Invitations Sincere ? - 67 
Section iv. The Atonement an Expression of God's 

Universal Love, 75 



6 



CONTENTS. 



Section v. The Salvation of all Men the Pleasure 
and Will of God, - 



CHAPTER II. 

Calvinism Teaches Infant Damnation, - 

Section i. Does the Westminster Confession of Faith 
Teach Infant Damnation ? 

Section ii. No Proof that only Elect Infants Die, 

Section hi. Infant Condemnation was Taught Prior 
to the Westminster Assembly, 

Section iv. Infant Condemnation Taught by the West- 
minster Assembly, - 

Section v. The Doctrine More or Less Distinctly 
Taught Since the Westminster Assem- 
bly, 



no 

in 
ii5 

118 

I2C 
122 



CHAPTER III. 

Calvinism Contradicts the Bible by Declaring Saving 
Faith to be a Direct Gift of God, 



Section i. 

Section ii. 
Section hi. 
Section iv. 



Section v. 



Section tv. 



Calvinism Declares that Faith is not a 

Condition of Salvation, - 
The Importance of Faith, 
The Nature of Faith, 

The Language of Scripture Presupposes 
and Asserts that Faith which Worketh 
by Love is *a Radical Condition of Sal- 
vation, - 

How is Faith Obtained? How does it 

Come? - 
Objections Considered, - 



126 

127 
130 
136 



137 

143 
146 



CHAPTER IV. 

For What are the Non-Elect Eternally Punished? - 168 

Section i. Can the Non Elect be Saved ? - - 169 
Section ii. How Certain Calvinists Vindicate the Di- 
vine Justice and Sincerity, - - 176 



CONTENTS. 



7 



Section hi. Calvinism Teaches that the Non-Elect are 
Rejected and Condemned Irrespective 
of their Wicked Deeds or Character, 

Section iv. The Doctrine Denied, and yet Granted by 
Some Calvinists, - 

Section v. The Doctrine Denied by some Calvinists, 
but Logically Necessitated by their 
Fundamental Position, 

Section vi. The Bible Argument, 



205 



217 
224 



CHAPTER V. 
The Foreknowledge of God. How Related to His Will, 
Is Divine Foreknowledge Possible ? 



Section i. 
Section ii. 
Section hi 

Note I., 
Note II., 



Calvinism Limits God's Omniscience, 
The Bible Testimony Concerning the Di- 
vine Prescience and Will, 



246 
247 
277 

292 
312 



PART III. 

Calvinism Contrary to Man's Moral Nature, 



319 



CHAPTER I. 
Calvinism Makes God the Author of Sin, 



Section i. 
Section ii. 
Section hi. 



Section iv. 

Section v. 
Section vi. 



No Absolute Evil in the Universe, 
God the Efficient Cause of Sin, 
The Infra or Sublapsarians declare that 
the Views of the Supralapsarians legiti- 
mately make God the Author of Sin, 
How some Calvinists Show that God is 

not the Author of Sin, 
God's Will not the Criterion of Right, 
The Infralapsarian Scheme. Does it 
Solve the Problem ? - - ■ 



321 
321 

323 



325 

327 

34o 

348 



8 



CONTENTS. 



Section vii. My Position Confirmed by Eminent Cal- 

viuists, - - - 352 

Section viii. God not Guiltless, if He Permits, when 

He Could Prevent Sin, - - - 358 

Section ix. Some Objections Considered, - - 365 

CHAPTER II. 

Calvinism Contradicts Conscience, - 374 

Section i. Calvinism Denies the Truthfulness of Re- 
morse, - - - 375 
Section ii. Calvinism Contradicts the Ought of Con- 
science, - - - - 380 
SECTON hi. In Denying the Ought of Conscience, 

Calvinism Contradicts the Divine Law, 387 

CHAPTER HI. 
Ally of Universalism, - - - 392 

Calvinism and Universalism agree Con- 
cerning God's Power, - - 394 
Calvinism and Universalism Substantially 
Agree Concerning the Good Uses of Sin 
and the Denial of Freedom, - - 398 
To a Large Extent Universalism is a Re- 
action Against Calvinism, - - 400 
As Universalism Becomes more Biblical, 
the Fundamental doctrine of Calvinism 
is Denied, ----- 403 

Note in., ------- 408 



Calvinism an 
Section i. 

Section ii. 

Section hi. 
Section iv. 



PART I. 

WHAT IS CALVINISM? 

' ' It can not be said that the slightest departure 
from the statements of Calvin is an abandonment of 
Calvinism. And yet there are some principles so 
distinctive, that if they be given up the system is 
abandoned. ' ' — A Ivan Tobey. 



PART I. 



What is Calvinism? 

Among the friends of Calvinism two views exten- 
sively prevail. The first regards the system as con- 
siderably modified since the sixteenth century ; hence, 
any harsh statement made by an opponent is charac- 
terized as a misrepresentation. Possibly such things 
were once taught, but are not now, and therefore, 
they should not be designated as Calvinism. 

Again, it is constantly affirmed by others equally 
friendly, that Calvinism has not changed ; that its 
distinctive doctrines are taught now, as formerly, at 
the seminary and in the pulpit. 

Here, it would seem is conflicting testimony ; yet, 
possibly both parties are right. It is quite suggestive 
that the first position is more generally held by laymen, 
who, somewhat conscious of the repulsive features of 
Calvinism, desire to commend its doctrines. 

The other view extensively prevails among minis- 
ters and theologians ; hence, the divergence may be 
explained on the supposition that while the theology 
is held in its substantial integrity at the seminaries, 
and by all, or nearly all ministers at their ordination, 
yet as it is heard by the people, as it is preached by 
the majority of pastors, its most objectionable features 
have been greatly modified so as to mean almost noth- 
ing, or so explained as to teach Arminianism. 

ii 



12 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



The present discussion in the Presbyterian church 
concerning the revision of the Westminster Confession 
has already clearly revealed the existence of these 
conflicting opinions. 1 

The following exposition of Calvinism by its ablest 
defenders is worthy the reader's careful attention. 



1 At a special meeting of the Presbytery of New York, Nov. 4, 1889, 
Dr. Schaff read a paper on Revision of the "Westminster Confession. Dur- 
ing the reading he asked the brethren present if any of them ever preached 
on the decree of reprobation to manifest it by rising. No one rose.— Maga- 
zine of Christian Literature, Jan., 1890, p. 204. 



CHAPTER I. 



Calvinism and Augustinianism thk Same in 
Their Essential Characteristics. 

' ' Our fathers had much discussion over the doctrine 
of decrees ; and, indeed, it is a wonder that we do 
not have more, for whoever looks into the mighty 
themes of a theodicy must regard election, decrees, 
foreordination, freewill, fate, these matters concern- 
ing which the angels debated in Milton's ' Paradise 
Lost,' as really supreme topics of philosophy as well 
as of religious science." — Joseph Cook. 



CHAPTER I. 



Calvinism and Augustinianism the Same in 
their Essential Characteristics. 

"Much of Calvin's theolog}^ is common to him 
with all evangelical divines, and in the parts which 
are more peculiar to him and his school he follows 
closely in the steps of Augustine." 1 

In an article on " The Position of Calvinism," 
Rev. Robert Aikman, D. D., uses the following lan- 
guage : "It will be in order just here to state what is 
the Augustinian theology, or Calvinism, which is the 
same thing. ' ' 2 

Says Dr. Charles Hodge, " Such is the great scheme 
of doctrine known in history as the Pauline, Augus- 
tinian, or Calvinistic, taught as we believe, in the 
Scriptures." 3 

On the other hand, both Lutherans and Calvinists, 
following the example of Augustine, rejected the 
notion of the freedom of the will, and denied every 
co-operation on the part of man. Nevertheless it is a 
striking fact that the Lutherans avoided the strict con- 
sequences of the Augustinian system and asserted that 
the decrees of God are conditional, while the Calvin- 
ists not only admitted the necessity of those conse- 
quences, but having once determined the idea of 

1 W. t,. Alexander, D.D., " Encyclopsedia Brit." 

2 " Meth. Review," 1873, p. 301. 

3 "Systematic Theol.," Vol. II., p. 333. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 1 5 

predestination, went so far as to maintain that the fall 
of man itself was predestinated by God. ' ' 1 

Professor George P. Fisher, D. D., says: "The 
particulars in which Calvin varied from Augustine are 
these, Augustine made the fall of Adam, the first sin, 
the object of a permissive decree. Calvin was not sat- 
isfied with a bare passive permission on the part of 
God, and makes statements which tend to the supra- 
lapsarian idea. This view was developed by Beza and 
a section of the Calvinists. But infralapsarian or 
Augustinian Calvinism has had the suffrages of a 
majority. It is found in the Westminster Confession, 
and even the creed of the Synod of Dort does not go 
beyond it. Augustine held to the praeterition, instead 
of the reprobation of the wicked ; or rather to their 
reprobation, not to sin, but to the punishment of 

sin High Calvinists held to a positive decree 

of reprobation, analogous to that of election; yet 
denied that God is the author of sin. Calvin dif- 
fered from Augustine in holding to the perseverance 
of all believers ; that is, that none but the elect ever 
exercise saving faith. Augustine attributed to the 
sacraments a greater effect on the non-elect. Thus he 
held that all baptized infants are saved. This sacra- 
mental tenet is often declared to be a feature of the 
Anglican system, as opposed to that of Calvin." 2 



1 Hagenbaeh's " History of Doctrine," Vol. II., p. 254. 

2 " History of the Reformation," p. 337, note. 



chapter ii. 

Ark God's Decrees Conditioned on His Fore- 
knowledge ? 

"The great Genevan Reformer with consistent in- 
trepidity, was in truth, so far as doctrine is concerned, 
the highest of the high. Fearlessly pushing his 
principles to their full legitimate extent, he at once 
maintained, without any restriction or disguise, both 
the dogma of reprobation and the theory of supralap- 
sarianism." — G. S. Faber, D. D. 



16 



CHAPTER II. 



Are God's Decrees Conditioned on His Fore- 
knowledge ? 

This is the crucial question concerning the doctrine 
of Divine decrees. The following pages will clearly 
disclose the fact that Calvinism has but one answer to 
the question. 

" Augustine accounts for the fact that some men 
are renewed, and some are not, because of the uncon- 
ditional decree (decretum absolutum) Its 

ground and reason is God's wise good pleasure, and 
not a foreseen faith upon the part of the individual 
man." 1 

The following is a concise and clear presentation 
of the doctrine as formulated by Gottschalk : ' ' The 
peculiarity in the doctrine of Gottschalk consisted in 
this, that he applied the notion of predestination not 
merely, as was commonly done, to the pious and to 
salvation, but also to the reprobate and to everlasting 
punishment. He affirmed a prcedestinatio duplex, by 
virtue of which God decreed eternal life to the elect, 
and the elect to eternal life, and so also everlasting 
punishment to the reprobate, and the reprobate to 
everlasting punishment. This doctrine seems to him 
important, because it enabled him to hold fast the 
unchangeableness of the divine decrees, and their 
entire independence of that which takes place in time. 

i Dr. W. G. T. Shedd's " History of Doctrine," Vol. I., pp. 70, 71 
17 



1 8 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



In reference to the works of God, foreknowledge and 
foreordination are one ; his knowledge being one with 
his will, and this will creative." 1 .... <l Thomas 
Aquinas, in opposition to those who supposed a grace 
conditioned on the right use of freewill, and a predes- 
tination conditioned on the divine foreknowledge with 
regard to this right use, maintained that all this is 
already comprised among the effects of predestination 
and presupposed by it. " 2 

Beza ' ' adopted the supralapsarian statement of the 
doctrine of predestination which renders the doctrine 
more austere and repelling than the infralapsarian 
representation." 3 "The Second Helvetic Confession 
says, ' God, from eternity, predestinated or elected 
freely, and of his own mere grace, with no respect 
of men's character, the saints whom he would save 
in Christ.' " 4 " No one can deny but God foreknew 
Adam's fall, and foreknew it because he had ordained 
it so by his own decree. " 5 " The decision of the Synod 
of Dort, condemnatory of the Arminian doctrines, was 
unanimous In accordance with the acknowl- 
edged symbols of that church (the Reformed) the 

Synod decided (2 ) 1 That God out of the 

human race, fallen by their fault into sin and destruc- 
tion, according to the most free good pleasure of his 
own will, and of mere grace, chose a certain number 
of men, neither better nor worthier than others. . . . 
to salvation in Christ. ' " 6 " Although God knows 

1 Neander's " Church History," Vol. III., p. 474. 
2 Ibid., Vol. IV., p. 478. 

3 Shedd's " History of Doctrine," Vol. II., p. 192. 

4 Ibid., p. 470, Chap. XXIII., Sec. 7. 

5 Calvin's " Inst.," Book III. 

e Chas. Hodge. " Theology," Vol. II., p. 724. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



I 9 



whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all sup- 
posed conditions ; yet hath he not decreed anything 
because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would 

come to pass, upon such conditions Those of 

mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before 
the foundation of the world was laid, according to his 
eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret coun- 
sel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in 
Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free 
grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good 
works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other 
thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving 
him thereunto ; and all to the praise of his glorious 
grace." 1 

"Others there are who have taught that God's 
electing of these and rejecting the other, dependeth 
wholly on the will of men themselves, and not on the 
decree or will of God : and that there is none rejected 
of God till by their own contempt, themselves do first 
reject God, and by their willful obstinacy refuse his 
grace which is offered unto them. How evidently do 
these men oppugn the Scriptures of God ! For if 
election and rejection depend on the actions of men 
after they are born, how can it be true which the 
apostle teacheth, that we are elected before the foun- 
dation of the world ?" 2 

" That he foreknew the futurity of it (the fall) is 
undeniable, for he laid in for a remedy against the 
evil effects of it, respecting his elect, having chosen 
them in Christ before the foundation of the world, 



1 "Westminster Confession of Faith," pp. 26-28. 

2 "A Sermon on Predestination." Rev. Rich. Crakanthorp, D.D., 
London, 1623, pp. 10, 11. 



?0 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



(Eph. 1:4,) which foreknowledge could have no 
ground, but in his purpose, the thing being in itself 
contingent." 1 

Toplady says : 1 ' Those who are ordained unto 
eternal life were not so ordained on account of any 
worthiness foreseen in them, or of any good works to 
be wrought by them, not yet for their future faith, but 
purely and solely, of free sovereign grace, and accord- 
ing to the mere good pleasure of God." 2 

' ' God decreeth to give us His grace and be the 
chief cause of all our holiness ; and doth not elect us 
to salvation on foresight that we will do his will, or 
be sanctified by ourselves without him. It is strange 
that any should think that God would undertake so 
great a work as man's redemption, and not effectually 
secure the success by his own will and wisdom : but 
leave all to the lubricous will. of man." 3 

1 ' The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination sup- 
poses that holiness of heart and life are as much the 
object of divine appointment as future happiness, and 
that this connection can never be broken." 4 

Speaking of the elect, Charnock says, ' ' Nor could 
it be any foresight of works to be done in time by them, 
or of faith that might determine God to choose them." 5 

"When we say that God acts in an absolute and 
sovereign manner, the meaning is, that he acts upon 
the best and strongest reasons and for the noblest and 
most excellent ends : but which are, many or most of 
them beyond our reach and comprehension, and par- 

1 Sam'l Willard, "Complete Body of Divinity," 1726, p. 178. 

2 "Works," London, 1857, p. 694. 

3 The Genius, Works, and Times, ot Baxter," 1845, Vol. I., p. 45. 

4 A. Fuller's "Works." Bonn's Lib'y, p. 364. 

5 " Attributes of God," London, 1842, p. 662. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



21 



ticularl} T , that there is not the least foundation for 
supposing that the reasons of preference are taken 
from comparative human merit. ' ' 1 

" St. Paul exhibits this subject in a happier man- 
ner : 1 Whom he foreknew, ' says the apostle, ' he also 
predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son.' 
By this declaration, we are not to understand that the 
predestination spoken of followed the foreknowledge, 
any more than that the foreknowledge followed the 
predestination. The Apostle says : ' Whom he fore- 
knew,' not after he had foreknown them." 2 

' ' Those who would account for the foreknowledge 
of God without his decrees, have always found the 
subject dark and incomprehensible. But there is 
nothing dark, unintelligible or incomprehensible in the 
foreknowledge of God as founded on his decrees. If 
God formed all his purposes from eternity, he must 
necessarily have known all things from the beginning 
of the world. For if the foreknowledge of God be not 
founded upon his decrees, it has no foundation : it is 
an effect without a cause. ' ' 3 

Says Dr. Samuel Hopkins : ' ' Foreknowledge is 
not only to be distinguished from the decree, but must 
be considered, as, in the order of nature, consequent 
upon the determination and purpose of God ; and de- 
pendeth upon it. For the futurition or futurity of all 
things depends upon the decrees of God. By these, 
every created existence and every event, with all their 
circumstances, are fixed and made certain ; and in 



1 Dr. Witherspoon. "Works." Vol. I., p. 189. 

2 Dr. Timothy Dwight. " Works." Vol. I., p. 240. 

3 Dr. N. Emmons. "Works." Ide's Ed., Vol. II., pp. 326, 327. 



22 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



consequence of their being thus decreed, they are the 
objects of foreknowledge." * 

Says Dr. E. D. Griffin, " Faith (the condition of 
salvation) and holiness generally, instead of being in- 
dependent acts of the creature under the persuasions 

of the Spirit, are the gift of God The choice 

of the elect was made, not in view of the foreseen op- 
erations of the determining power, but by the sovereign 
will of God decreeing to make them holy ; and they 
are made holy in consequence of that decree." 5 

The following is from Dr. John Dick : "I remark 
once more that the decrees of God are absolute and 

unconditional Here we have many opponents. 

Lutherans, Arminians, Jesuits ; all, in a word, who 
have not adopted those views of the subject which are 

usually called Calvinistic When he decreed 

to save those who should believe, he decreed to give 

them faith That any decree is conditional 

in the sense of our opponents, that it depends upon 
the will of man, of which he is sovereign, so that he 
may will or not will as he pleases — we deny ' ' 0 Says 
Dr. John Howe, " Lastl3 T , it is very evident, that as 
to communications of grace and favor, God doth dis- 
pense very differently : and therefore must be under- 
stood to intend so to do, and to have always intended 
it." 7 "Thus we think, that the decree and the fore- 
knowledge of God are inseparably connected together: 
and that, according to human conceptions, the decree, 
in point of order, must precede foreknowledge. The 



4 " Works," Vol. I., p. 70. 

5 " The Doctrine of Divine Efficiency," pp. 127-145. 

6 " Lectures," New York, 1856, p. 357. 
" Works," London, 1862, p. 1139. 



AND MAN'S MORAI, NATURE. 



23 



reverse of all this is the doctrine of the Arminians. 
They say that the foreknowledge of God is the ground 
of his decree. ' ' 8 

V But although God was not moved in the election 
of his people by the foresight of their faith or good 
works, but chose them out of his mere love ; I re- 
mark (3) In his sovereign and gracious purpose of 
election all the means that are necessary to their sal- 
vation are included or were provided for. " 9 ' ' But 
why was this salvation confined to a certain favored 
number called the elect ? This doctrine of the sov- 
ereignty of divine grace, has from the beginning been 
offensive to human reason. The selection of men and 
not of angels, as the object of redemption, can be 
borne with ; but that, out of the same mass some 
should be taken, confessedly no better than others by 
nature ; and that many should be reprobated or left, 
no worse than those elected, has ever been a stum- 
bling block to multitudes." 1 

" 'Tis true, many who are too proud to be indebted 
for their eternal salvation to the free favor of God, in- 
sist that the election by which he distinguishes sinners 
from sinners, is grounded upon good disposition ; upon 
faith and holiness foreseen in the objects of that elec- 
tion. But if men be allowed to interpolate divine 
revelation and to add to the oracles of Jehovah 
the figments of their own invention, we may lay aside 
our Bibles." 2 

"With respect to the doctrine of election, I would 

8 Dr. Ashbel Green. " Lectures on the Shorter Catechism," p. 178. 

9 Dr. G. W. Musgrave. " Tracts on the Doctrines, Order and Polity of 
Presbyterian Church," Vol. III., p. 205. 

1 Dr. A. Alexander. " Compend. of Bible Truth," p. tot. 

2 Dr. J. M. Mason. " Complete Works," 1849, Vol. III., p. 405. 



24 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

state it in Scripture terms, and obviate the Antinomian 
interpretation, by remarking that man, as man, is said 
to be chosen to obedience, to be conformed to the im- 
age of his Son, etc., and not on a foresight of his 
faith or obedience ; as also that the distinction be- 
tween true believers and others is often expressly 
ascribed to God." 3 " Election is the choice of certain 
persons by God, from all eternity, to grace and glory. 
The reason why men are elected is not because Christ 
has shed his blood for them, redeemed and saved 
them ; but Christ has done all this for them, because 
they are elected. It is wholly owing to the will and 
pleasure of God, and not to the faith, holiness, obedi- 
ence and good works of men ; nor to a foresight of all 
or any of these. It is absolute and unconditional, 
irrespective of anything in man as the cause and con- 
dition of it." 4 "The decrees of God are to be dis- 
tinguished from his prescience or foreknowledge. 
Foreknowledge and decrees are intimately connected, 
but not identical Foreknowledge is condi- 
tioned on, or founded in decrees." 5 

' 1 This relation of God's knowledge and foreknowl- 
edge to his purpose is important to a just conception 
of his sovereignty. God could not foreknow an event 
which was dependent on his positive or permissive 
will until he had purposed to accomplish or permit 
it." 6 

Speaking of the views of Dr. N. W. Taylor and 
President Finney, Rev. Jas. Wood, D. D. says, " They 

3 Robt. Hall. " Works," Vol. III., p. 231. 

4 Dr. John Gill, Quoted by Dan'l T. Fiske in " Bib. Sacra," Vol. XIV., 

P- 359- 

5 Article by Dan'l T. Fiske. " Bib. Sacra." Vol. XIX, pp. 403, 413. 

6 E. A. Lawrence. " Bib. Sacra," Vol. XX., p. 340. 



AND MAN'S MORAI, NATURE. 



25 



involve the denial of divine decrees ; for if God does 
not possess such absolute control over his creatures 
that he can govern them according to his pleasure, 
how could he have decreed anything unconditionally 
concerning them, since it might happen, that in the 
exercise of their free agency, they would act contrary 
to the divine purpose ? On the same principle, they 
virtually reject the Calvinistic doctrine of election and 
make election depend upon the foreknowledge of God, 
and the will of the creature." 7 

" You will observe that the Confession only says 
that he did not decree anything" because he foresaw it; 
that is, his foreknowledge is not the ground or cause 
of his decrees. Still they are inseparably connected. 
His decrees are not dependent upon his foreknowledge, 
nor identical with it ; but his foreknowledge is rather 
dependent upon his decrees, though perfectly distinct 
from them." 8 

" Speaking of the simple intelligence and determin- 
ate knowledge of the Deity, Robt. J. Breckenridge, 
D. D., LL.B., remarks, "By the latter, which involves 
the divine will, God knows from eternity all things 
that would actually exist in the system of the universe. 
This is called foreknowledge. God, as we have shown, 
knows all possible things whether considered sepa- 
rately or in systems ; hence he knows all things that 
are possible under all possible systems. And all 
things that will be actual, he knows as being deter- 
mined by his will." 9 

"Again, if election were according to faith and 



> " Old and New Theology," p. 31. 

8 Wm. D. Smith. " What is Calvinism ? " p. 39. 

" 9 The Knowledge of God, Objectively Considered," 1858, p. 277. 



26 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

works foreseen, there would be no difficulty in answer- 
ing the question, why God chooses one and not an- 
other? It would be because God foresaw that the 
former would believe and that the latter would remain 
in unbelief : yet we nowhere read of this in Paul, nor 
in the other sacred writers ; on the contrary it is ex- 
pressly declared that it is not of him that willeth." 1 

" New-school Presbyterians do not affirm that 
faith foreseen is the condition with God for his decree 
of election, much less any good works." 2 "With 
regard to unconditional election, it must be wholly 
without foreseen merit - in the creature. This is the 
perfection of grace, that God seeks his creatures and 
they do not seek him. Nullum elegit dignum ; nullum 
tamen punit indignum. This we can not modify ; this 
stands essential to the doctrine. We pass into another 
system if we cross the line which separates the two 
problems." 3 

4 ' On the most obvious principles of reason, there- 
fore, the divine foreknowledge of events must have 
been founded on the divine will in framing the uni- 
versal structure of things and impressing upon them 
respectively the laws of their action." 4 

" It is not true that he first knows who will repent, 
and then determines to give them repentance. He 
knows men will not repent, unless by his Spirit, he 
gives them repentance." 5 



1 Pictet's "Theology." Reyroux's Translation. Presby. Board, pp. 
204, 205. 

2 Geo. Duffield, D. D. " Bib. Sacra," Vol. XX., p. 632. 

3 Leonard Withington, D. D. " Bib. Sacra," Vol. XXL, p. 792. 

4 Samuel S. Smith, D. D., LL.D. "Natural and Revealed Religion," 
1816, pp. 259-260. 

5 Leonard Woods, D. D. " Works." Vol. I., p. 511, 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



2 7 



Says Dr. Venema : ' ' The act of the decree is abso- 
lute ; not uncertain or doubtful. It is not suspended 
on any condition on the part of man." 6 

Commenting on Rom. ix. 11, Dr. Albert Barnes 
says : ■ ' It was not because they had formed a char- 
acter and manifested qualities which made this distinc- 
tion proper. It was laid back of any such character 
and therefore had its foundation in the purpose or 
plan of God." 1 

' ' The idea that God elected some because he fore- 
saw that they would repent is not sustained when we 
consider that God could not foresee anything which 
was not certain ; and that nothing but God's decree 
makes it certain." 2 

' ' Holy practice is not the ground and reason of 
election, as is supposed by the Arminians, who im- 
agine that God elects men to everlasting life upon a 
foresight of their good works : but it is the aim and 
end of election. God does not elect men because he 
foresees that they will be holy, but that he may make 
them, and that they may be holy." 3 

" Our opponents would have it, that all whom he 
foreknew would be penitent, or virtuous, or obedient, 
them He did predestinate to eternal life — thus subor- 
dinating the decrees of God to the doings of men. 
But unfortunately for their view, the predestination 
here is a predestination in the first instance to the 
character of saints, ere they should be translated to 
the glory of the inheritance of saints, so as very clearly 

6 "Institutes of Theology," 1853, p. 289. 
1" Commentary." 

2 Nehemiah Adams, D. D. " Evenings With The Doctrines," p. 256. 

3 Pres. Edwards. " Christian Love," p. 321. 



28 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



to subordinate the doings and the moral state of men 
to the preordination of God. ' ' 4 

Controverting the views of Professor John Forbes, 
D. D., Iylv.D., of Edinburgh, Dr. Lyman H. Atwater in 
' ' The Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review, ' ' 
remarks : 1 ' He frequently argues as if it were Supra- 
lapsarianism-not to hold that the decree of election or 
reprobation is conditioned on a foresight of consent to, 
or stubborn rejection of, salvation in Christ. This 
latter doctrine, however, is not Supralapsarianism, but 
simple Arminianism." 5 

4 ' From the mass of fallen men God elected a num- 
ber innumerable to eternal life, and left the rest of 
mankind to the just recompense of their sins. That 
the ground of this election is not the foresight of any- 
thing in the one class to distinguish them favorably 
from the members of the other class, but the good 
pleasure of God." 6 

The following is from " Outlines of Theology," by 
Dr. A. A. Hodge : "The truth is that God, eternally 
and unchangeably, by one comprehensive act of will, 
willed all that happened to Adam from beginning to 
end in the precise order and succession in which each 
event occurred. God's will is suspended upon no con- 
dition, but he eternally wills the event as suspended 
upon its condition, and its condition as determining 
the event Calvinists admit that the all com- 
prehensive decree of God determines all events accord- 
ing to their inherent nature, the actions of free agents 
as free, and the operations of necessary causes, neces- 



4 Dr. T. Chalmers. " Inst, of Theolog3', Vol. II., p. 390. 
s 1873, p. 165. 

6 Dr. Chas. Hodge " Sj'Stematic Theology," Vol. II., p. 333. 



AND MAN'S MORAI, NATURE. 



2 9 



sary. It also comprehends the whole system of 
causes and effects of every kind ; of the motives and 
conditions of free actions as well as the necessary 
causes of necessary events. God decreed salvation 
upon the condition of faith, yet in the very same act 
he decreed the faith of those persons whose salvation 
he has determined." Again, " They are sovereign in 
the sense that while they determine absolutely what- 
ever occurs without God, their whole reason and 
motive is within the divine nature, and they are neither 
suggested nor occasioned by nor conditioned upon 
anything whatsoever without him." 7 



? Pages 118, 119, 167, 166 



CHAPTER III. 

Is God Able to Prevent Sin ? 

" Men persist in regarding sin, and especially their 
own sin, as a trivial matter, and excuse it, and palliate 
it, and construct philosophical systems representing it 
as on the whole for the best. But apart from human 
philosophy and speculation, and that perverted theo- 
logical teaching which makes ' sin the necessary means 
of the greatest good ' ; apart also, from the schemes of 
infidel men, to accommodate matters to their own 
wicked conduct, and so to arrange the administration 
of the Almighty, that they can live prayerless and 
godless lives here, and yet come out safe in the end 
apart from such things, there is no countenance given 
either from reason, or revelation, or the workings of 
God's providence in the world, or from any source 
whatever, to the idea, that God has any other views 
or feelings about sin than those of unmitigated loath- 
ing, and an infinite preference that no one of his 
moral creatures should ever have committed it." — 
* * Law and Penalty Endless. ' ' 



3° 



CHAPTER III. 



Is God Able to Prevent Sin ? 

' ' Augustine teaches that God ordains sin, but 
does not produce it. " 1 

The following is from Calvin : ' ' The will of God 

is the supreme and first cause of things He does 

not remain an idle spectator, determining to permit 
anything; there is an intervention of an actual voli- 
tion, if I may be allowed the expression, which other- 
wise could never be considered a cause. ' ' 2 

Speaking of Adam's relation to God, John Howe 
says : " He did not purpose to confirm him at first in 
that good state wherein he made him, so as to make 
it impossible for him to fall : for we find he did fall, 
and is in a lapsed state : therefore it was purposed 
that his fall should not be prevented, that it should 
not be hindered." 3 

' ' The permission of the fall doth not reflect on the 

divine purity God is an omnipotent good, and 

it is his peculiar glory to bring good out of evil, that by 
the opposition and lustre of contraries his goodness 

might be the more conspicuous Now the evil of 

sin God permitted as a fit occasion for the more glo- 
rious discovery of his attributes, in sending his Son 



1 Shedd's " History of Doctrine," Vol. I., p. 85. 

2 "Institutes." B. I., Chap. XVI. 

* " Works." London, 1862, p. 1135. 

3i 



32 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

into the world to repair his image which was de- 
faced, and to raise man from an earthly to celestial 
happiness." 4 

1 1 He can so permit sin as that it should infallibly 
be, and yet not so affect it as that it shall be any stain 
to his holiness in the least. As the sun is not defiled 
by shining upon the most dirty, stinking places, 
though they stink the more for its shining upon them ; 
so God is then most holy when he' is giving of men 
up to sin. He can so order it that Absalom shall com- 
mit the most horrid abomination, without being a 
blamable cause of it. He can harden Pharaoh's 
heart and yet very justly punish him for that hardness 
of his." 5 

"So God by his absolute power, might have pre- 
vented the sin of the fallen angels, and so have pre- 
served them in their first habitation Sin, in 

itself is a disorder, and therefore God doth not permit 
sin for itself ; for in its own nature it hath nothing of 
amiableness, but he wills it for some righteous end, 
which belongs to the manifestation of his glory, which 

is his aim in all the acts of his will God willed 

sin, that is, he willed to permit it, that he might com- 
municate himself to the creature in the most excellent 
manner." 6 

' ' Having, in his infinite but incomprehensible 
wisdom and righteousness, permitted the fall and 
apostacy of man, he looked upon the whole human 
species as deserving of destruction and meet for it." 7 

4 Wm. Bates. "The Harmony of the Divine Attributes." Presby. 
Board, pp. 50, 51, 52. 

5 Sam'l Willard. " Complete Body of Divinity," Boston, 1726, p. 134. 

6 Charnock. " Attributes of God," London, 1842, pp. 401, 345, 347. 

7 Scott's " Comprehensive Commentary," p. 215. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



33 



"God was either willing that Adam should fall, or 
unwilling, or indifferent about it. If God was un- 
willing that Adam should transgress how came it to 
pass that he did? Is man stronger, and is Satan 
wiser than he that made them? Surely no. Again: 
could not God, had it so pleased him, have hindered 
the tempter's access to paradise ? or have created man 
as he did the elect angels, with a will invariably de- 
termined to good only, and incapable of being biased 
to evil ? Or at least have made the grace and strength, 
with which he indued Adam, actually effectual to the 
resisting of all solicitations to sin ? None but Atheists 
would answer these questions in the negative. Surely, 
if God had not willed the fall, he could, and no doubt 
would have prevented it : but he did not prevent it : 
ergo, he willed it. And if he willed it, he certainly 
decreed it : for the decree of God is nothing else but 
the seal and ratification of his will. ' ' 8 1 ' Our first par- 
ents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of 
Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This 
their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and 
holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it 
to his own glory." 9 Speaking of President Edwards' 
theology, President Noah Porter says, "The exist- 
ence of moral evil, in consistency with the divine 
perfections, is explained by the principles announced 
in the Treatise on the Will, viz.: that the Divine 
Being is not the author of sin, but only disposes things 
in such a manner that sin will certainly ensue. If 
this certainty is not inconsistent with human liberty, 
then it is not inconsistent with this liberty that God 



8 Toplady's " Works." London, 1857, p. 691. 

9 "Westminster Confession of Faith," p. 42. 



34 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



should be the cause of this certainty, and in that sense 
be the author of sin." 1 "All things, both beings 
and events, exist in exact accordance with the pur- 
ooses, pleasure, or what is commonly called, The De- 
crees of God." .... God "does according to his 

will, independently and irresistibly That God 

could not prevent the existence of sin can not be main- 
tained." 2 

' ' I believe that God could have prevented sin, and 
would, had he not seen it a means of blessing the 
universe by rilling it with his glory. " 3 

' ' There can nothing take place under the care and 
government of an infinitely powerful, wise and good 
Being that is not on the whole wisest and best ; that 
is, for the general good ; therefore, though there be 
things which are in themselves evil, even in their own 
nature and tendency, such are sin and misery ; yet, 
considered in their connection with the whole, and as 
they are necessary in the best system to accomplish 
the greatest good, the most important and best ends ; 
they are in this view desirable good, and not evil. 
And in this view there is no absolute evil in the uni- 
verse ! There are evils in themselves considered, but 
considered as connected with the whole, they are not 
evil but good." 4 

' ' The first Cause of all things must have decreed 
ail things. If God has not decreed, he has not caused 
all things. And if he has not caused all things what 
reason is there to believe that he has caused anything ? 



1 Ueberweg's " History of Philosophy." Vol. II., p. 448. 

2 T. Dwight's " Theology." Vol. I., pp. 238, 241, 253. 

3 E. D. Griffin " The Doctrine of Divine Efficiency," p. 32. 

4 Samuel Hopkins'. "Theology," Vol. I., p. 92. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



35 



.... His power is absolutely unlimited and irresisti- 
ble." 5 

Speaking of moral evils, President Samuel Stanhope 
Smith says, " To say that they have been merely per- 
mitted, without any interference, or concern of Al- 
mighty God in the actions of men, is only attempting, 
by the illusion of a word, to throw the difficulty out 
of sight, not to solve it." 6 

Dr. Ashbel Green declares, " Evil he permits to 
take place, and efficaciously overrules it for good for 
the promotion of his glory." 7 In "Tracts on the 
Doctrines, Order and Polity of the Presbyterian 
Church ' ' we have the following testimony : ' 1 The 
conclusion is, therefore, to our minds irresistible, that 
if God be infinitely wise, benevolent and powerful, 
and perfectly foreknew what beings and events would, 
on the whole, be best, he must have chosen and or- 
dained that they should exist, or be permitted to 
occur ; and that consequently everything that does 
actually come to pass in time, has been eternally and 
unchangeably foreordained ; and is either the effect of 
the divine efficiency, or the result of his predetermined 
permission." 8 

In volume fifth of the same work we are told, 
" Our doctrine, then, is simply this. By positive and 
permissive decrees, God, in wisdom and in love, man- 
ages the affairs of the universe, directs and controls 
all things and all events, all creatures and all their 
actions. It must be so, for suppose an event to take 

5 Nathanael Emmons' " Works," i860, Vol. II., pp. 343, 546. 

6 " Natural and Revealed Religion," p. 269. 

7 " lectures on the Shorter Catechism," p. 177. 
s Vol. III., G. W. Musgrave, p. 199. 



36 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

place without the divine permission, for example, then 
it must be either because God is not aware of it, or 
can not prevent it. If not aware of it, he can not be 
omniscient ; if he can not prevent it, then he is not 
omnipotent ; and then, of course, in the last cause 
' there must be a power behind the throne greater than 
the throne itself ' which thought would be frightful." 9 
Dr. Bellamy taught: "The doctrine of the wisdom 
of God, in the permission of sin, supposes sin in itself, 
and in all its natural tendencies to be infinitely evil, 
infinitely contrary to the honor of God and the good 
of the system. For herein consists the wisdom of 
God in the affair, not in bringing good out of good, 
but in bringing infinite good out of infinite evil ; and 
never suffering one sin to happen in all his dominions 
but which, notwithstanding its infinitely evil nature 
and tendency, infinite wisdom can and will overrule 
for greater good on the whole. " 1 4 ' The decrees of God 
relate to all future things without exception : Whatever 
is done in time was foreordained before the beginning 
of time. His purpose was concerned with everything, 
whether great or small, whether good or evil ; although 
in reference to the latter it may be necessary to dis- 
tinguish between appointment and permission." 2 
"All things that happen, happen by the will of 
God, whether that will be permissive, directing or 
executive." 3 " Now, though sin is hateful to God, 
it constantly takes place in his government ; and it is 
atheism to say he could not prevent it, for he is not 

9 Dan'l Baker, Tract XXI. 

1 As quoted with approval by Bennett Tyler, D. D., in " Lectures on 
Theology," 1859, p. 218. 

2 John Dick, " Lectures on Theology," 1856, p. 353. 

3 Venema. " Institutes of Theology," 1853, p. 271. 



AND MAN'S MORAI, NATURE. 37 

God if he can not govern the world. We must, there- 
fore, conclude, he permits it for reasons unknown to 
us. " 4 "It will not do for us to say absolutely that 
God could not have bestowed upon Adam strength 
adequate to his trial ; all we can say is that this could 
not be done upon the principles of the precise trial 
then made." 5 Says Pictet, " Since nothing can hap- 
pen contrary to the knowledge and will of God, we 
say that he permits evil, though he in no way ap- 
proves of it." 6 Dr. A. Alexander says, " The reason, 
then, why sin was permitted to exist was, that God 
might have an opportunity of manifesting his own 
glory to all intelligent creatures more conspicuously, 
which is the great end of all his works and dispen- 
sations." 7 "The decrees of God are not merely 
his purpose to permit events to take place as they do. 
Some hold that, with regard to the existence of sin we 
can only affirm that the divine decrees extend to it in 
the sense that God determines to permit it, that is, not 
to prevent it. But this language does not seem to ex- 
press the whole truth. God might, indeed, be said 
to decree the existence of whatever he could have 
prevented, but determined not to prevent. But 
the decrees of God are not mere negatives. They are 
purposes to do something and to do that which ren- 
ders certain the existence of all events, sin included." 8 
" God permitted the introduction of sin, not because 
he was unable to prevent it consistently with the 



4 Win. D. Smith. "What is Calvinism?" p. 29. 

5 Dr. Breckinridge. "The Knowledge of God, Objectively Consid- 
ered," p. 494. 

6 " Theology," Reyroux's Translation, p. 115. 

7 "Compend. of Bible Truth," pp. 74, 75. 

8 Dan'l T. Fiske. " Bib. Sacra,' "Vol. XIX., p. 404. 



38 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

moral freedom of his creatures, but for wise and be- 
nevolent reasons, which he has not revealed." 9 

' ■ The Old School have charged the New with be- 
lieving that God could have prevented the existence 
of sin in the world, but not without destroying the 
freedom of the human will ; and that sin is inciden- 
tal to any moral system. To this the latter reply, 
that God permitted the entrance of sin, but not be- 
cause he was unable to prevent it ; but for wise and 
benevolent reasons which he hath not revealed." 1 

Speaking of the hardening effects of the divine 
dealings with the Egyptians and Canaanites, Pres- 
ident Jeremiah Day remarks, " Will it be said, that 
God merely permitted their hearts to be hardened ; or 
permitted them to harden their own hearts ? If this 
be conceded, it must be still understood, that he had 
power to prevent this result. What sort of permis- 
sion is a mere inability to prevent that which is per- 
mitted?" 2 " Our doctrine, then, concerning the first 
sin committed by man, and in which the human race 
was involved, is simply, that God for wise reasons 
decreed or purposed, first, to permit, and secondly, to 
overrule it for his glory." 3 ' ' Whatever occurs, he, 
for wise reasons permits to occur. He can prevent 
whatever he sees fit to prevent. If, therefore, sin 
occurs, it was God's design that it should occur. If 
misery follows in the train of sin, such was God's 
purpose. ' ' 4 

9 "The Auburn Declaration," 1837. 

1 Geo. Duffield, D. D." Bib. Sacra, Vol. XX., pp. 630,631. 

2 "An Inquiry Respecting the Self-Determining Power of the Will," 
p. 192. 

3 N. L. Rice, "God Sovereign and Man Free," p. 31. 

4 Dr. Charles Hodge. " Systematic Theol." Vol. II.. p. 332. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



39 



Says Dr. Leonard Woods, "Evil does exist. . . . 
It exists in a world formed by him who possesses 
infinite wisdom and power, and who, if he had chosen, 
could have formed and governed the world so as to 
exclude it. " 5 " The admission of sin into the creation 
of an infinitely wise, powerful and holy God is a great 

mystery of which no explanation can be given 

The whole difficulty lies in the awful fact that sin 
exists. If God foresaw it and yet created the agent, 
and placed him in the very circumstances under which 
he did foresee the sin would be committed, then he 
did predetermine it. If he did not foresee it, or fore- 
seeing it, could not prevent it, then he is not infinite 
in knowledge and in power, but is surprised and pre- 
vented by his creatures." 6 



5 "Works." Vol. I,, p. 529. 

f > Dr. A. A. Hodge. " Outlines of Theology," p. 171. 



CHAPTER IV. 

Why Are the Finally Impenitent Lost ? Is it 
Because God Can not Save Them ? 

"But how, it may be asked, when God is an 
omnipotent sovereign, can sin so come in and not 
implicate him in either his participation or neglect ? 
We answer, according to our theory of Rectitude, by 
this general hypothesis, and yet, when clearly appre- 
hended, we hardly deem it can be held merely as 
rrypothesis, but as exact truth ; that sin, in some form 
and extent, will be a certain result of God's dealings 
with his creatures according to what is due to himself. 
In other words, if God always deals with finite spirits 
according to principles of ' honor and right,' there will 

be sin With a goodness infinitely higher than 

any craving of a benevolent susceptibility or prompt- 
ing of nature for happiness, and of a wholly- distinct 
kind, even in the broad sense of goodness that would 
have all that was worthy for Infinite Excellency to 
receive — he planned and executed the work of the 
sinner's redemption, and only fails of attaining uni- 
versal salvation in it, from the perverse rejection of 
sinners, in whose behalf his own honor will not allow 
his power and grace to work an}' longer nor any 
further."— L. P. Hickok, D.D., LL.D. 



AO 



CHAPTER IV. 



Why Are the Finally Impenitent Lost ? Is it 
Because God Can not Save Them ? 

"Thus, the Augustinian system with rigorous self- 
consistence formed itself as follows : All men before 
regeneration, and since Adam's fall, which corrupted 
human nature, both physically and morally, are in 
essentially one and the same state of alienation from 
God, of spiritual enmity towards him, and of con- 
demnation by him. This state is one of self-will 
without the power to the contrary, and hence fallen 
man, as such, can do nothing but evil. He can be 
delivered from this state only by the grace of God, 
who imparts the principle of holiness and progressive 
sanctification through the medium of faith in Christ. 
This grace (as gratia irresistibilis) with internal and 
almighty power overcomes the utmost intensity of 
man's self-will and aversion, and the recipient of it is 
eternally saved." 1 "The wills of men are so gov- 
erned by the will of God that they are carried on 
straight to the mark which he has foreordained." 2 

The Synod of Dort ' ' held that regenerating as 
distinct from common grace is able to subdue all oppo- 
sition of the sinful will, and therefore can not be re- 
sisted in the sense of being defeated or overcome." 3 

1 Guericke's "Church History." Shedd's Translatation, p. 379. 

2 Calvin's " Institutes." B. I., Chap. XVI. Sec. 8. 

3 Shedd's " Hist, of Doctrine." Vol. II., p. 497. 

4i 



42 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

''To all those for whom Christ hath purchased re- 
demption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and 
communicate the same : Making intercession for 
them, and revealing unto them, in and by the word, 
the mysteries of salvation ; effectually persuading 
them by his Spirit to believe and obey ; and govern- 
ing their hearts by his word and Spirit." 4 " Luther 
compared man to a saw, which is a passive instrument 
in the hands of the carpenter." 5 

"Wherefore, if God would not at all have the 
death and destruction of those vessels of wrath which 
are of old ordained to condemnation, as St. Luke 
speaketh, then certainly, though all the armies, both 
in heaven and earth should band together, yet could 
they not all effect the death of the meanest or weakest 
of them ; for who is able to resist his will, who is Al- 
mighty ? And who saith of himself, 1 My counsel 
shall stand and I will do whatsoever I will.' Unless 
then we deny the first article of our faith, which is 
the Omnipotency of God, we must needs confess, that 
the death and damnation of those vessels of wrath 
cometh to pass by the will of the Almighty : for if 
he willed it not, he could, nay, he would have hindered 
it ten thousand ways." 6 

In a work entitled " A Defence of Some of the Im- 
portant Doctrines of the Gospel," the following testi- 
mony is given : '* If election is an absolute purpose 
of God to save any independent of any conditions to 
be performed by them which may render this purpose 
effectual to their salvation, then it must be unchange- 



4 Westminster Confession of Faith," p. 61. 

5 Hagenbach's " Hist, of Doctrine." Vol. II., p. 258. 

6 Richard Crakanthorp's " Sermon on Predestination.' 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 43 

able ; and if it is an unchangeable purpose of God to 
save, then all those whom he thus purposed to save, 
must necessarily and infallibly be saved. Nothing 
can hinder, prevent or disannul their salvation." 7 
" We shall now inquire whether the grace of God, in 
the renewing of a sinner, may be frustrated, or set 
aside, by the opposition of the creature. And here 
we are to remember it is God's work, and therefore 
must be perfect, since he can and will do all his pleas- 
ure. To say that he can not, though he would, change 
the sinner's heart, by an immediate act of his own 
power, is to challenge his omnipotence. So that the 
question is not whether God can do this or no : but 
whether it is worthy of him, and how far it is really 
the case? .... If the soul is passive in the im- 
planting the principle of grace, as we have endeavored 
to prove, then there can be no resistance in regenera- 
tion." 8 

Charnock, in speaking of the relation of God to 
sin, says, " If he did in no sort will it, it would not be 
committed by his creature : sin entered the world, 
either God willing the permission of it, or not willing 
the permission of it. The latter can not be said : for 
then the creature is more powerful than God, and can 
do that which God will not permit. God can, if he 
be pleased, banish all sin in a moment out of the 
world." 9 "God never designed to save every individ- 
ual ; since, if he had, every individual would and 
must be saved, for his counsel shall stand, and he will 



7 John Sladen, p. 97. 

8 Sam'l Wilson, pp. 319, 320. 

9 " Attributes of God," p. 493. 



44 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



do all his pleasure." 1 " Now, God's eternal election 
is the first ground of the bestowment of saving grace. 
And some have such saving grace, and others do not 
have it because some are from eternity chosen of God, 
and others are not chosen." 2 

Dr. Ashbel Green, in explaining the doctrine of 
reprobation says, 1 ' Or will you say that he gave equal 
grace to both ; but the one improved it and the other 
did not ? For the sake of the argument, let this for a 
moment be admitted. But then I ask could he not 
have given grace that certainly would have been effect- , 
ual to him who remains without religion ? You will 
not so limit God and his grace, as to say he could not. 
But he actually did not. He left the person in ques- 
tion without effectual grace. And here is all the doc- 
trine of reprobation which we hold." 3 Dr. Nathanael 
Emmons says of God, ' ' He decreed the existence, the 
character, the conduct and the state of all moral be- 
ings both in time and eternity. He decreed that some 
should be the monuments of his goodness, some the 
monuments of his justice ; and some the monuments 
of his mercy. And he decreed all the means by which 
his rational creatures should be brought to their final 

and eternal condition It is his secret will that 

all the elect shall repent and believe ; and that all the 
non-elect shall live and die in impenitence and unbe- 
lief." 4 In the same spirit Dr. E. D. Griffin taught, 
. . . . * ' God has the absolute control of mind in all 
its common operations, else how could he govern the 



1 Toplady's " Works," p. 692. 

2 Edwards' " Christian L,ove," p. 321. 

3 " Lectures on the Shorter Catechism," p. 288. 

4 " Works." Vol. II., pp. 333-346. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURK. 45 

world ? Whether he does this by the mere force of 
motives adapted to the existing temper, or sometimes 
by a lower sort of efficiency, not, however, productive 
of sin, I will not determine. But the fact is incon- 
trovertible Even in the motions of sin (though 

only permissively I suppose), his government is effect- 
ual. " 5 The following is from Dr. John Dick : ' ' The 
term predestination, includes the decrease of election 
and reprobation. Some, indeed, confine it to election ; 
but there seems to be no sufficient reason for not ex- 
tending it to the one as well as to the other ; as in 
both the final condition of man is pre-appointed or 
predestinated They (the non-elect) were ap- 
pointed to wrath for their sins ; but it was not for 
their sins as we have shown, but in the exercise of 
sovereignty, that they were rejected." 6 

Commenting on the passage ' ' Surely the wrath of 
man shall praise thee," Dr. Samuel Hopkins says, 
. . . . M God does superintend and direct with regard 
to every instance of sin. He orders how much sin 
there shall be, and effectually restrains and prevents 
all that which he would not have take place. 
Men are, with respect to this, absolutely under his 
direction and control." 7 14 When any are lost, we do 
not hesitate to say that they perish by their own de- 
serts, although God could have mercifully saved them 
had it pleased him." 8 " He carries on all beings to 
their end, and so rules them as that now misseth it. 
There is a peculiar subordinate end, and there is an 



5 "The Doctrine of Divine Efficiency," pp. 95, 98. 

6 " lectures on Theology," pp. 360, 373. 
V "Works." Vol. I., p. 98. 

8 Pictet's "Theology," p. 213. 



46 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

universal, general and last end : the creature may miss 
the former but not the latter." 9 

' ' So that if we admit that the works of God are 
known to him from the beginning of the world, it can 
never be true that in his eternal counsels, Christ died 
to save those, who after all that he hath done shall be 
miserable forever. ' He is a rock — his work is perfect. ' 
His design never could be frustrated." 1 "God has 
purposed by a positive act of his will, not only to con- 
demn unbelievers, but also to withhold from some 
sufficient grace, on which withholding, as we shall 
see, when we come to treat of the doctrine of repro- 
bation, depends the final ruin of the impenitent. Com- 
mon grace, of which even those who perish partake, 
consists in the offer of Christ, made in the Gospel, an 
offer which is intended by God to be made to all, and 
in which no one at least is excluded. But besides this 
common grace, there is particular and efficacious grace 
which is bestowed only on some, and which is so inti- 
mately connected with salvation that it begets faith in 
those to whom it is given, i. e., the elect. This grace, 
as we shall afterwards show, is irresistible." 2 In the 
celebrated Auburn Declaration of 1837, which was a 
peace-ofFering from the New to the Old School Pres- 
byterians, we are told : " While repentance for sin and 
faith in Christ are indispensable to salvation, all wiio 
are saved are indebted from first to last to the grace 
and spirit of God. And the reason that God does not 
save all is not that he wants the power to do it, but 
that in his wisdom he does not see fit to exert that 



9 Willard. "Complete Body of Divinity," p. 143. 

1 John Witherspoon. "Works," Vol. I., p. 342. 

2 Venema's "Institutes of Theology," pp. 297, 298, 299. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



47 



power further than he actually does While all 

such as reject the gospel of Christ do it not by coer- 
cion but freely, and all who embrace it, do it not by 
coercion but freely, the reason why some differ from 
others is that God has made them to differ. ' ' 8 

The following from the " Princeton Essays," con- 
demns Arminianism and gives the true Calvinistic 
doctrine. " These views of human agency are such, 
that God is virtually represented as unable to control 
the moral exercises of his creatures ; that notwith- 
standing all that he can do they may yet act counter 
to his wishes, and sin on in despite of all the influence 
which he can exert over them consistently with their 
free agency. If this be not to emancipate the whole 
intelligent universe from the control of God and destroy 
all the foundations of our hopes in his promises we 
know not what it is. When sinners are thus repre- 
sented as depending on themselves, God having done 
all he can, exhausted all his power in vain for their 
conversion — how they can be made to feel that they 
are in his hands, depending on his sovereign grace, 
we can not conceive. " 4 

" Effectual calling is a work of God's infinite 

grace, executed by his Almighty power The 

moving and original cause of our personal salvation, 
and so of our effectual calling of God is not at all nor 
in any degree anything in us ; but is the free and 
especial love of God for his elect according to his 

eternal purpose and grace in Jesus Christ In 

this work of divine renovation, man is wholly passive. 
.... I have said repeatedly that the absolute domin- 



3 As quoted by Geo. Duffield, D. D., in " Bib. Sacra," July, 1863. 

4 " Princeton Review," 1846, p. 303. 



48 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



ion of God ever man, and the absolute dependence of 
man on God. are the fundamental truths that control 
all the relations between God and man." 5 "If God 
could as easily have saved all as a part, why did he 
not manifest his goodness in doing so ? To which it 
may be answered, that we do not know the reasons of 
the divine conduct in this matter. He, as an absolute 
Sovereign, has a right to do as seemeth good with his 
own." 6 Speaking of man's ignorance of, and his 
inability to grasp divine things, Professor B. B. Ed- 
wards says, "If he undertakes to examine the mode 
of operation in any of the works of God, he will be 
baffled at every step. His curiosity prompts him to 
do this, but his powers are incompetent. He has a 
strong desire to know the manner in which God works 
in the world of mind — how he controls free agents, 
while yet they are conscious of perfect freedom — why 
God elects some, in his mere sovereign pleasure unto 
everlasting life, why he did not long since communi- 
cate the blessings of salvation to the whole family of 
man." 7 

"In regeneration men are wholly passive ; as they 
also are in the first moment of conversion, but by it 
become active. Regeneration is an irresistible act of 
God's grace ; no more resistance can be made to it, 
than th'sre could be by the first matter in its creation, 
or by a dead man in his resurrection." 8 

" The operations of the Spirit in regeneration are 
efficacious or invincible. By this I mean what the old 

5R. J. Breckenridge. "The Knowledge of God Subjectively Consid- 
ered," pp. 132, 156, 55. 

6 Dr. A. Alexander. " Compend of Bible Truth," p. 102. 
f " Writings," Vol. I., p. 283 

8Alvan Tobey. " Bib. Sacra," Vol. XVIII., p. 382. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



49 



divines meant by irresistible grace He who 

subdued the heart of the persecuting Saul, and who 
cast seven devils out of Mary Magdalene, can, if he 
please, make any sinner a trophy of his grace." * 

"The whole matter, therefore, resolves itself into 
the two questions : i . Can God exercise over men a 
particular providence so as to bring to pass his wise 
purposes, without destro3 r ing or impairing their free 
agency ? 2. Can God exert upon the minds of men, 
providentially and by his Spirit, a Divine influence 
that will certainly lead them to Christ, and induce 
them to persevere in his service, without interfering 
with their liberty? These questions have already 
been answered. We have seen that the providence of 
God extends to all things and events, and that he can 
so govern even wicked men as to fulfill his purposes 
without interfering with their -freedom of choice." 1 

Leaving a sinner to his own evil way is, according 
to Dr. Albert Barnes, . . . ' 'an act of sovereignty on the 
part of God, .... and in not putting forth that in- 
fluence by which he could be saved from death." 
Speaking of the passage " For there is no respect of 
persons with God," he says, " It does not imply that 
he may not bestow his favors where he pleases, w r here 
all are undeserving ; or that he may not make a dif- 
ference in the characters of men by his providence and 
by the agency of his Spirit." 2 Combating the Armin- 
ian doctrine that God saves all whom he can, Dr. 
Nehemiah Adams affirms " This can not be. We can 
not fully revere one whom we pity. We prefer to 



9 Bennett Tyler. "Lectures on Theology," p. 359. 

1 N. I,. Rice, D. D. " God Sovereign and Man Free," p. 83. 

2 "Commentary" on Romans, pp. 197, 58. 



50 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

place every man, angel and devil, with every holy and 
sinful act, and the eternal happiness or misery of every 
one of us in the hands of an infinitely wise and power- 
ful God and pray that he would order everything 
with a view to the highest interest of his universal 
Kingdom." 3 For the following, we are indebted to 
Dr. Charles Hodge. It gives no uncertain sound. " If 
some men only are saved, while others perish, such 
must have entered into the all-comprehending purpose 
of God." Again, speaking of common grace and the 
non-elect, he says, ''That while the Holy Spirit, in 
his common operations, is present with every man, so 
long as he lives, restraining evil and exciting good, 
his certainly efficacious and saving power is exercised 
only in behalf of the elect." 4 

Dr. A. A. Hodge says " It rests only with God 
himself to save all, many, few or none." He informs 
us that " Reprobation is the aspect which God's eternal 
decree presents in its relation to that portion of the 
human race which shall be finally condemned for their 
sins. It is first, negative, inasmuch as it consists in 
passing over these, and refusing to elect them to life ; 
and second, positive, inasmuch as they are con- 
demned to eternal misery. In respect to its negative 
element, reprobation is simply sovereign, since those 
passed over were no worse than those elected, and the 
simple reason both for the choosing and for the pass- 
ing over, was the sovereign good pleasure of God." 5 

The reader is now in a position where he can read- 



3 "Evenings with the Doctrines," p. 255. 

4 "Systematic Theology," Vol. II., pp. 332, 333. 

5 '* Outlines of Theology," pp. 181, 184. 



AND MAN'S MORAI, NATURE. 



51 



ily and intelligently judge of the true nature of Cal- 
vinism. All minor points in the system have been 
avoided because (1) They are logically involved in 
the preceding principles. Hence such doctrines as 
Original Sin, and Imputation, or the Federal Head-ship 
of Adam, are but means to an end ; intermediate steps 
by which the unconditional sovereignty of God is made 
to appear less repulsive and more reasonable. Once 
grant that God can decree or has eternally decreed a 
man's destiny irrespective of divine foresight of what 
that person's character shall freely be, you have logic- 
ally conceded all : the other doctrines simply explain 
how the result is reached. ( 2 ) Like otljer theological 
systems, Calvinism in its minor doctrines is variously 
interpreted. Prof. Henry B. Smith has said, "Cal- 
vinism, in its historical growth, has assumed a variety 
of forms. It has been prolific in systems. ' ' 6 Hence 
Old and New School Calvinism, while agreeing on 
God's sovereignty, differently explain such doctrines 
as Original Sin, Imputation and Ability. Thus Dr. 
Albert Barnes was tried for heresy because he did not 
accept among other doctrines the Old School view of 
Imputation. 7 



6 " Faith and Philosophy," p. 225. 

V " To say that I am blameworthy, or ill deserving for a sin in which I 
had no agency, is no explanation, but is involving me in an additional dif- 
ficulty still more perplexing to ascertain how such a doctrine can possibly 
be just." "Commentary," Rom., p. 122. 



s 



PART II. 

CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD. 

" Let it be remembered as a very just and very im- 
portant remark of Doddridge, that the plain sense of 
the Scriptures, or that which naturally strikes the 
minds of plain men as the real meaning is almost of 
course the true sense." — Timothy Dwight, D. D. 



53 



PART II. 



CHAPTER I. 

Calvinism Teaches a Limited Atonement. 

In a discussion where the Scriptures are the crite- 
rion, it is certainly appropriate to consider the leading 
principles of Biblical interpretation. Not a few in all 
ages have considered the Bible a book of contradic- 
tions. Almost every heresy in theology and many 
disorders in society have possessed advocates who 
have claimed protection from the Scriptures. Thus 
the crime of slavery was prolonged for centuries ; the 
pretended revelations of Mormonism — that festering 
and contaminating sore on the body politic — have 
been, and are now accepted by not a few, because of 
their alleged agreement with the word of God. 

Hence there are men that, perplexed by the many 
different theories and systems of thought ; and not 
possessing sufficient time and skill to expose the soph- 
isms, grow skeptical concerning the authority of the 
Bible, and like Pilate, cry despairingly "What is 
truth?" 

But beyond all successful contradiction the Bible is 
God's revelation. It is for the instruction and guid- 
ance of the human race. A unity pervades its pages. 
It was meant to teach something : not anything and 
everything. While it contains " some things hard to 

55 



56 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S W0RD 

be understood," while it teaches mysteries which the 
human reason can not fathom, yet the underlying 
principles, the essentials of salvation are so clearly 
revealed that "the wayfaring men, though fools, shall 
not err therein." Jesus Christ is "the true Light 
which lighteth every man that cometh into the world ' ' : 
consequently he affirmed concerning the unbelieving 
Jews, " If I had not come and spoken unto them, they 
had not had sin ; but now they have no cloke for their 
sin." 

The Calvinist has been justly admired for his ad- 
herence to the divine Word. The spirit which prompts 
him to go to the Law and the Prophets to search the 
Scriptures for the reason of the hope which is within 
him is worthy of all emulation. While it is hoped the 
same spirit will animate the present discussion, the 
methods of interpretation adopted may be designated as 
follows : (i) The clearly revealed Scriptures are to 
have the pre-eminence ; hence ( 2 ) The less clearly re- 
vealed Scriptures are to be interpreted by the former. 

(3) The context must be allowed its full weight ; and 

(4) the Analogy of Faith, or general harmony of Script- 
ure must be preserved. 

SECTION I. 

Terms Defined. The Problem Stated. 

In this discussion the term atonement is used in its 
broadest sense. Objectively considered it refers to the 
vicarious sufferings of the Lord Jesus Christ as satisfy- 
ing the divine law. Considered subjectively it refers 
to the results of Christ's [perfect life and] sacrificial 
death which may be called salvation or redemption 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



57 



from sin. This salvation is possible, and actual even 
as it is, or is not appropriated by the individual. Says 
Dr. Samuel D. Cochran : "This substitutional, expia- 
tory, righteous act of Christ, having this infinite value, 
is p7'ovisio?ial for all human sinners, but made actual 
only for those who appropriate it by faith. ' ' 1 Hence 
the atonement objectively considered is the ground on 
which salvation is offered to all. By the vicarious 
sacrifice of Christ, God's veracity and justice are 
exalted, and his infinite hatred of sin, but boundless 
love for the sinner wondrously revealed. God's gov- 
ernment is honored while at the same time his mercy 
is freely extended to all. But all men do not accept 
this mercy : therefore the question before us is, For 
whom did Christ die ? For all men, or for a certain 
number called the ' ' elect ' ' ? Was it the will of God 
that Christ should die for all in a certain sense — so 
that all may and do receive benefits therefrom, but 
only for the elect in a saving or efficacious sense ? Or 
did he die for all men in the same sense ? Calvinists 
answer these questions by saying : ' ' Christ died meri- 
toriously for all, efficaciously only for the elect. 0 To 
this effect is the declaration of the Westminster Con- 
fession of Faith. ' 1 As God hath appointed the elect 
unto glory, so hath he by the eternal and most free 
purpose of his will, foreordained all the means there- 
unto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in 
Adam, are redeemed by Christ by his Spirit working 
in due season ; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and 
kept by his power through faith unto salvation. 
Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually 



l " The Moral System and the Atonement," p. 245. 



58 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



called, justified, adopted, sanctified and saved, but the 
elect only." 2 

The following is from Dr. Lyman Atwater. ' ' All 
who know anything of the Westminster standards, 
know that they represent Christ as the ' Redeemer of 
God's elect,' and that they limit the redemptive effi- 
cacy of his death to his people." 3 "Our Saviour, 
likewise, in the course of his preaching, taught the 
doctrine of reprobation in plain and pointed terms. 
He told some of his obstinate hearers that he came 
into the world to save the elect, and destroy the non- 
elect." 4 

New England, or modern Calvinism differs from 
that of the Westminster symbol concerning the extent 
of the atonement. Dr. H. B. Smith says of Emmons : 
* ' He symbolized with the younger Edwards and Hop- 
kins, and opposed the older Calvinism as to the extent 
of the atonement, proclaiming it to be universal in its 
provisions." To the Arminian, this is a distinction 
without any essential difference ; for while the methods 
are diverse, the results reached by both systems of 
Calvinism are the same. 

The old view conceives God as really inviting none 
but the elect, while according to the new school theo- 
logy, the entire human race is urged to accept salva- 
tion. The latter certainly appears more reasonable : 
but as it is explained by new school advocates it is 
mere logomachy. Thus Dr. Barnes says of the tenth 
chapter of Romans, ' ' In the closing part of this chap- 
ter the great doctrine is brought forth and defended, 



2 p. 29. 

3 "Bib. Sacra," Vol. XXI., p. 116. 

4 Emmons. "Works," Vol. II., p. 396. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURK. 



59 



that the way of salvation is open for all the world." 5 
But how is the way of salvation open to all the world ? 
In the sense that it was the purpose of God to save all 
whom the divine foresight saw would freely accept 
Jesus ? By no means ; for as we have seen, Dr. Barnes, 
with all consistent Calvinists, denies foresight as the 
ground or basis of election. Here are his words as he 
explained his position before the Philadelphia Synod : 
1 ' I may safely challenge any man to point out the 
place in the whole book (the Confession of Faith) 
where it is affirmed that the work of Christ in its 
original applicability is necessarily confined to any 
number or class of men." Once more : "To the Re- 
deemer's sufferings and death contemplated apart from 
the actual purpose to apply his merits, I chose, in 
accordance with many writers, to apply the word 
atonement. The actual application of his work, I 
supposed might be appropriately expressed by the 
word redemption. It was not thought that this was a 
departure from Scripture usage. The word atonement 
occurs but once, as applicable to the death of Christ 
in the New Testament : the word redemption often, 
and this latter word always with reference to the pur- 
pose to apply it. It did not seem then, to be a gross 
violation of the Scripture usage to describe by the 
word atonement a thing which may and must be con- 
templated the highest and best gift of God — the suf- 
ferer, the bleeding victim, the atoning sacrifice ; still 
less can it be seen how this usage can be construed 
into an offense against the Confession of Faith. In all 
our standards of doctrine the word atonement never 
occurs. Nor is it the purpose of the standards to 



5 r Com. 



60 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

describe the thing which I wished to express by the 
word, the original, independent applicability of the 
sufferings of Christ. The Confession of Faith states 
only its application. For that it uses the word re- 
demption. It affirms of that, that it is limited and 
was intended to be limited. That the sermon never 
denied." G Certainly a most wonderful, and to the 
present discussion, valuable confession. It shows (i) 
Dr. Barnes' essential agreement with the Confession 
of Faith. (2) When he declares "that the way of 
salvation is open to all ' ' he means that the atonement, 
the objective atonement is applicable to all ; and as 
thus applicable to all is but once mentioned in the 
New Testament : and ( 3) That redemption which 
often occurs in the New Testament is limited — is 
meant to be limited to the elect. 

The problem is now clearly before the reader. 
The Arminian declaring, and the Calvinist denying 
that so far as the death of Jesus Christ is concerned, 
it had an equal reference to every man, and thus is 
the basis of God's offer of mercy to the entire race. 

Over the gates of Plato's school were the words, 
' ' Iyet no one not a geometrician enter here ' ' ; but the 
Word says, " Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to 
the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy 
and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without 
money and without price." (Isa. lv. 1. ) 

6 " Christian Spectator," 1831, pp. 294, 295. 



AND MAN'S MORAI, NATURE. 



61 



SECTION II. 

Concessions of Calvinists. Illustrating Certain Passages 
of Scripture. 

According to Dr. William Smith "election em- 
braces no decree or purpose that hinders any one from 
coming to Christ and being saved if they would. 
There is nothing that hinders their salvation but their 
own aversion to holiness and their love of sin ; and it 
is for this that God has purposed to damn them." 7 

Dr. Milner says "All men may be saved if they 
please. There wants the will only. But such is our 
natural enmity against God, that though the blood of 
his Son was freely spilt for all men without exception, 
not one soul would return to God by true repentance, 
were it not for his blessed and adorable purpose of 
election, which before the foundation of the world, 
determined that some souls should be benefited by 
his universal redemption and led to repentance toward 
God, to faith toward our IyOrd Jesus Christ." s 

Speaking of the election of some, Dr. Nehemiah 
Adams affirms " No injustice is done to those who are 
left : salvation is consistently offered to them, and 
their state is no worse than though all like them had 
perished." 9 Dr. H. B. Smith, speaking of the differ- 
ences between the Old and New School Calvinists says, 
' ' And as to the limits of the atonement if we do not 
raise the intricate questions of the order of the decrees 
and the specific terms of the covenant of redemption, 
little more than a verbal dispute remains so soon as 

1 "What is Calvinism?" p. 50. 

8 As quoted by G. S. Faber. "The Primitive Doctrine of Election," 
London, 1862. p. 43. 

9 " Evenings with the Doctrines," p. 246. 



62 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

we agree that the oblation made by Christ is sufficient 
for all, is to be offered to all, enhances the guilt of 
those who reject it ; and also had some special respect 
in the comprehensive divine purpose to the elect." 1 

The difficulties pertaining to Calvinistic doctrine 
of Decrees and the gospel invitations constrained Dr. 
John Dick to speak as follows : ' ' There is a greater 
difficulty here than orthodox divines sometimes seem 
willing to acknowledge and tne mode in which they 

meet it, is not always satisfactory He who sees 

no difficulty here, has not, as he possibly imagines, 
more understanding than other men, but less. " 2 

Dr. Isaac Watts is more positive and presents a 
view, which to some is quite plausible. Of the non- 
elect he says, "God himself has put no effectual and 
insurmountable bar, or rather no bar at all, in their 
way, to prevent their acceptance of his grace. His 
choosing other persons, to make them certain par- 
takers of this grace, is no hindrance to those who were 
not chosen, from accepting the same. It is my opin- 
ion that there is such a thing as a general sufficiency 
of pardon, grace and happiness provided for all man- 
kind by Jesus Christ. And it is left to their own nat- 
ural powers under common helps to accept or refuse 
it." Then follow the reasons for the above. " It is 
very hard to vindicate the sincerity of the blessed God, 
or his Son, in their universal offers of grace and salva- 
tion to men, and their sending ministers with such 
messages and invitations to accept of mercy, if there 
be no such a conditional pardon and salvation pro- 
vided for them It is hard to suppose that the 



1 " Faith and Philosophy.'' p. 286. 

2 " lectures on Theology," p. 375. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



63 



great God, who is truth itself, and sincere and faithful 
in all his dealings, should call upon dying men to trust 
in a Saviour for eternal life, when this Saviour has not 
eternal life intrusted with him to give them, if they 
do repent. It is hard to conceive how the great Gov- 
ernor of the world can be sincere in inviting and re- 
quiring sinners who are on the brink of hell to cast 
themselves upon an empty word of invitation — a mere 
shadow and appearance of support if there be nothing 
real to bear them up from those deeps of destruction, 
and nothing but mere words and empty invitations. ' ' 
Yet he says, 4 ' It seems evident to me from several 
texts of the Word of God that Christ did not die with 
an equal design for all men ; but that there is a 
special number whom the Father chose and gave to 
the Son, whose salvation is absolutely secured by the 
death and intercession of Christ." 3 

Agreeing with Dr. Watts, Dr. Venema says, 
" Common grace, of which even those who perish par- 
take, consists in the offer of Christ made in the gospel, 
an offer which is intended by God to be made to all, 
and in which no one at least is excluded. .... All 
have common grace, and it is possible for all to believe ; 
and if they will believe they will be saved." This is 
called a general predestination ; or, ' ' a general purpose 
on the part of God to save those who believe — a pur- 
pose which had reference also to those who rejected 
it." If God has not such a general decree or purpose, 
" then we can not hold that God seriously wills that 
all men should receive the proposition made to them. 
If, however, he does so will, then it must have refer- 
ence to all who read or hear it, and the purpose by 



3 " Works," Leeds edition, Vol. III., p. 468. 



6 4 



CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



which he has ordained a connection between faith and 
salvation must be general. We are aware, indeed, 
that there is a particular connection which has refer- 
ence only to the elect. Yet this proposition is made 
to all without distinction. For it would be absurd to 
suppose that God says to all ' believe and ye shall be 
saved' ; and yet that he does not will that they should 
believe and be saved." 4 

Alluding to the relation of conviction and practice, 
President Kdwards remarks, ' ' And so if men are really 
convinced of the truth of the things they are told in 
the gospel, about an eternal world, and the everlasting 
salvation that Christ has purchased for all that will 
accept it, it will influence their practice." 5 Dr. 
Hodge says, "The righteousness of Christ being of 
infinite value or merit, and being in its nature precisely 
what all men need, may be offered to all men. It is 
thus offered to the elect and to the non-elect ; and it is 
offered to both classes conditionally. That condition 
is a cordial acceptance of it as the only ground of jus- 
tification. If any of the elect (being adults) fail thus 
to accept of it, they perish. If any of the non-elect 
should believe, they would be saved. What more 
does any Anti-Augustinian scheme provide ? 6 



4 "Institutes." pp. 278, 303-305. This, as I said of the theory of Dr. 
Watts, is plausible to some minds. Beneath the surface, however, there is 
the true Calvinistic doctrine that faith — without which no one can be saved 
— is a gift of God, given to some, withheld from others. 

5 " Christian I^ove," p. 333. 

6 "Theology." Vol.11., p. 555. " If any of the elect." This is a wise 
provision, for elsewhere Dr. Hodge says that the death of Christ renders 
" the ultimate salvation of the elect absolutely certain. Of the non-elect, 
he declares they are " in a state of condemnation, sin and misery, from 
which they are utterly unable to deliver themselves." Surely, this is 
extremely magnanimous. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



65 



In the " Practical Sermons " of Dr. Barnes we find 
the following: " It is not my purpose in this discourse 
— though my text (Rev. xxii. 17) might seem to invite 
it— to dwell on the fact that the gospel is offered to all 
men ; that the Redeemer died for all ; that the eternal 
Father is willing to save all ; or that ample provision 
is made for all who will come. On these points, it is 
sufficient for my present purpose to say, that my text 
declares that ' whosoever will may take the water of 
life freely.' " 7 But of all Calvinists, Dr. Chalmers is, 
perhaps, the most enthusiastic advocate of the freeness 
of the gospel. The thought is so fresh and forcible 
that I can not forbear quoting at some length: "I 
can not but think that the doctrine of Particular 
Redemption has been expounded by many of its 
defenders in such a way as to give an unfortunate 
aspect to the Christian dispensation. As often treated, 
we hold it to be a most unpractical and useless theory, 
and not easy to be vindicated, without the infliction of 
an unnatural violence on many passages of Scripture. 
. . . . But far its worst effect is, that it acts as a drag 
and a deduction from the freeness of the gospel. Its 
ministers are made to feel the chilling influence of a 
limitation upon their warrant. If Christ died only for 
the elect, and not for all, they are puzzled to under- 
stand how they should proceed with the calls and 
invitations of the gospel. They feel themselves dis- 
abled from addressing them to all ; and this, in their 
ignorance of the elect and the reprobate individually, 
seems tantamount to their being disabled from address- 
ing them to any There must be a sad misun- 
derstanding somewhere. The commission put into 



66 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

our hands is to go and preach the gospel to every creat- 
ure under heaven ; and the announcement sounded 
forth on the world from heaven's vault was, peace on 
earth, good-will to men. There is no freezing limita- 
tion here, but a largeness and munificence of mercy 
boundless as space, free and open as the expanse of the 
firmament. We hope, therefore, the gospel, the real 
gospel, is as unlike the views of some of its interpre- 
ters, as creation in all its boundlessness and beauty is 
unlike to the paltry scheme of some wretched scholas- 
tic in the Middle Ages In the gospel, the flag 

of invitation waves in sight of the whole species. It is 
not inscribed there, ' Whosoever of the elect will ' ; but 
' Whosoever will, let him come and drink of the waters 
of life freely.' Neither do we read, ' Look unto me, ye 
specified and selected few ' ; but ' Look unto me, all ye 
ends of the earth, and be saved.' It is not in the 
capacity of an elect sinner, but in the capacity of a 
sinner, that he who is eventually saved entertains the 
overtures of reconciliation. These overtures are not 
made to him as one of the children of election ; they 
are made to him as one of the children of humanity. 
It is on the stepping-stone of a universal offer that 
each man reaches and realizes his own particular sal- 
vation The advocates of universal redemption 

are quite at one with ourselves as to the reception 
which the universal offer should meet with from all 
men. It should meet with universal acceptance, and 
should be pressed, too, on universal acceptance." 8 

Professor Tyndall has confessed to the world that 
his religious doubts were strongest in moments of 
intellectual despondency ; that his faith in God's ex- 



8 "Theology." Vol. II., pp. 418, 419, 421. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



6 7 



istence grew firmer in proportion as he came into the 
clear sunlight of mental conviction. Possibly the 
experience of the scientist will explain the position of 
the theologians whose views we have been considering. 
Certain it is, these writers believe in and contend for a 
free gospel— an unlimited salvation— a redemption 
from sin, which every son of Adam ought to accept. 
They establish the fact beyond all controversy that 
God does invite, nay, urge every sinful soul to accept 
the gift of salvation. 

SECTION III. 

Are the Gospel Invitations Sincere ? 

I much prefer to assume, and not to discuss this 
question. The very thought shocks our moral senti- 
ments. If long entertained it not only impairs the 
authority of the Scriptures, but attacks and gradually 
undermines the very citadel of personal religion — faith 
in the essential righteousness of God. But there is 
no alternative. The issue is forced upon the student of 
theology by the position of the Calvinists. As it has 
been shown (see Chapters 111. and iv. of Part I.) 
one of the fundamental doctrines of Calvinism is the 
absolute omnipotence of God. In this respect all con- 
sistent Calvinists must follow in the footsteps of their 
great leader ; as a recent writer has expressed it, "As 
we read the Institutes of Calvin, we see that the 
corner-stone of the whole structure is his doctrine of 
the Sovereignty of God." 9 Hence, the logical con- 
sistency of their position that if God were so disposed 
he could save every soul in the world. 



9 Rev. James B. Gregg. " New Englander," 1880, p. 454. 



68 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



All modern Calvinists agree in declaring the uni- 
versality of the gospel invitations. God can, but does 
not save all whom He invites. Consequently arises 
the difficulty concerning which Dr. Chalmers says 
" there must be a sad misunderstanding somewhere," 
while Dr. Dick declares that the Calvinist, who is 
determined to see "no difficulty here, has not, as he 
probably imagines, more understanding than other 
men, but less." "The many declarations in which 
God exhorts man to keep his commandments, appear 
to him ironical, as if a father were to say to his child, 
' Come,' while he knows that he can not come! " 1 Of 
those to whom God does not give efficacious grace, 
Calvin says, " He directs his voice to them, but it is 
that they may become more deaf ; he kindles a light, 
but it is that they may be made blind ; he publishes his 
doctrine, but it is that they may be more besotted ; he 
applies a remedy, but it is that they may not be 
healed." 2 

Rev. John Sladen informs his hearers, "All that 
God designed to save he saves ; but he actually saves 
some only, therefore, he designed to save only some 
of fallen Adam's children, for, if we consider God as 
infinite in wisdom, and of almighty power, there can 
not be a more rational way of arguing than from his 
acts to his designs." 3 This is similar to Symimgton's 
argument, who says in behalf of a limited atonement, 
" The event is the best interpreter of the divine inten- 
tion." 4 Dr. Nehemiah Adams says, " Not one more, 



1 Said of Luther. Hagenbach's "Hist, of Doc," Vol. IV., p. 259. 

2 " Institutes." B. III., Chap. XXIV., See. 13 

3 "A Defence of Gospel Doc.," p. 78 

4 As quoted in Bledsoe's "Theodicy," p. 235 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



6 9 



not one less will be saved than God purposed. ' ' 5 
' 1 God never designed to save every individual ; since, 
if he had, every individual would and must be saved ; 
for his counsel shall stand and he will do all his pleas- 
ure." 0 « 

It is now evident that if Calvinists have correctly 
interpreted the Scriptures, the universal invitations 
which constantly meet the eye of sinners, such as, 
"Ho, everyone that thirsteth," "Come unto me all 
ye that labor ; " " The spirit and the bride say, Come ; 
And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him 
that is athirst, Come, And whosoever will, let him 
take the water of life freely," do not and can not mean 
what the plain, ordinary readers in all ages have 
understood by them. 

With Justin Martyr, Ambrose and Chrysostom of 
the early Church, and with many thousands of modern 
Christians, I had ignorantly thought that the uni- 
versal invitations to the gospel feast meant what they 
said — expressed the real sentiments and sincere desires 
of God. But such is not the case — if Calvinism be 
correct — for while the everlasting Father does invite all 
through his revealed will, his secret will — his real 
desire is that only a certain number shall accept his 
overtures of mercy. Thus speaks Dr. Lyman Atwater, 
who says, " It results from the universality of God's 
decrees, as now set forth, that they who accept it, 
must also accept the distinction between the decretive 
and the preceptive will of God, i. e. y inasmuch as many 
things occur contrary to his commands, while yet he 
foreordains all things, it must be that in these cases 



5 "Evenings with the Doctrines," p. 257 

6 Toplady "Works," p. 692. 



7o 



CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



he proposes one thing and commands another. This 
can not be evaded by any who admit the universality 
of his decrees or purposes." 7 Commenting on Rom. 
ix. 19, Dr. B. D. Griffin says, "His decretive will in 
distinction from his preceptive — a distinction which 
the apostle here brings into view and does not deny, 
but in the context clearly affirms." 8 

Concerning the secret will of God, Dr. Emmons 
declares that it "solely respects the taking place of 
those things which he determined from eternity should 
take place, without any regard to the nature of them, 
whether morally good or morally evil. It was his 
secret will that not only holiness and happiness, but 
that sin and misery also should take place among 
his intelligent creatures. It is his secret will that all 
the elect shall repent and believe, and that all the 
non-elect shall live and die in impenitence and un- 
belief : though he loves faith and repentance and hates 
impenitence and unbelief." 9 

In the Bibliotheca Sacra of 1856 there is a Review 
of Toplady's Theology by Prof. Geo. N. Boardman, 
D. D. Wesley's great opponent says, "Although the 
will of God, considered in itself, is simply one and the 
same ; yet in condescension to the present capacities 
of men, the Divine Will is very properly distinguished 
into secret and revealed. Thus it was his revealed 
will that Pharaoh should let the Israelites go : that 



7 " Bib. Sacra," Vol. XXL, p. 82. The invasion has been attempted by 
one of Dr. Atwater's friends. With what success will appear further on. 
Doubtless, the logic of Dr. Atwater is correct in maintaining that he who 
accepts his premises ought to grant his conclusion. Strange that he does 
not question and deny the soundness of his premises. 

8 " Divine Efficiency," p. 147. 

9 " Works." Vol. II., p. 346. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



71 



Abraham should sacrifice his son ; that Peter should not 
deny Christ ; but as was proved by the event, it was 
his secret will that Pharaoh should not let Israel go ; 
that Abraham should not sacrifice Isaac, and that 
Peter should deny his Lord." To this Professor 
Boardman adds, as an explanation, "It must not be 
inferred from this that God's will is ever contrary 
to itself. The secret will of God is in reality his will : 
while that which is revealed has reference to the 
various circumstances of men. The hidden will is 
peremptory and absolute." 1 Here we have new 
light. It must be confessed the rays therefrom are 
cold, freezing cold, but it can not be denied that the 
truth as it is in Jesus has burst upon and overwhelmed 
us. 

As the sincerity of Almighty Love was eluding us, 
as it was getting every moment less and less real, I 
had hoped — doubtless, with the reader, that our un- 
erring interpreters of the Bible would leave untouched, 
the only remaining comfort of the non-elect, viz.: an 
eternal antagonism between the two Divine wills. 
But no ; even this small hope vanishes as the truth is 
forced upon me that the universal invitations of the 
gospel are no more to be relied upon than are the 
dreams of a madman ; for as these theologians tell us, 
they are in no sense the real expression of the Divine 
will. These invitations are made out of gracious con- 
descension to our finite capacities : they convey no 
truth, they express no reality, for in all cases "the 
secret will of God, is in reality, his will." 

The reasoning of this school of Calvinists when 
explaining the doctrine of a limited atonement, irre- 



1 Pages, 812, 813. 



72 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

sistibly leads to a flat denial of the Divine sincerity. 
To them it may appear reasonable and satisfactory ; 
but to other Calvinists it does not. Thus President 
R. L. Dabney, while claiming "that there is a just 
distinction between God's decretive and preceptive 
will," vSays "but let the question be stated thus: 
Do all the solemn and tender entreaties of God to 
sinners express no more, as to the non-elect, than a 
purpose in God, uncompassionate and merely rectoral, 
to acquit himself of his legislative function towards 
them ? To speak after the manner of men, have all 
these apparently touching appeals after all no heart 
in them ? We can not but deem it an unfortunate logic 
which constrains a man to take this view of them. 
How much more simple and satisfactory to take them 
for just what they express? evidences of a true com- 
passion, which yet is restrained, in the case of the 
unknown class, the non-elect, by consistent and holy 
reasons, from taking the form of a volition to regen- 
erate." The average reader will agree with Dr. 
Dabney that there must be some heart in the gospel 
invitations ; that the Divine compassion for lost souls 
which is constantly breaking forth in such expressions 
as " Cast away from you all your transgressions 
whereby ye have transgressed ; and make you a new 
heart and a new spirit ; for why will ye die, O house 
of Israel ? ' ' must be rooted in everlasting sincerity. 
But let us see if Dr. Dabney has, in any essential 
degree, a better solution. After declaring that "the 
plain Christian mind will ever stumble on this fatal 
question, How can a truthful and consistent God 
have two opposite wills about the same object?" he 
adds. " It is far more Scriptural, and, as we trust, has 



and man's moral nature. 



73 



been shown, far more logical to say, that an immutable 
and sovereign God never had but one will (one pur- 
pose, or volition), as to this lost man ; as a faithful 
God would never publish any other volition than the 
one he entertained, but that it was entirely consistent 
for God to compassionate where he never purposed 
nor promised to save, because this sincere compassion 
was restrained within the limits God announced by his 
own wisdom." 2 Certainly this is a remarkable solu- 
tion. Dr. Dabney believes in, and contends for, God's 
real compassion for the non-elect ; yet he gravely tells 
us that this yearning of the Father for the return of 
his lost children does not lead to salvation because 
" He never purposed nor promised to save." If this 
signifies anything, it must mean that the universal 
invitations of the gospel were never intended by God as 
promises to the non-elect. 

True, the same language between man and man 
would always be understood as a promise ; is so under- 
stood by every ordinary reader of the Bible through- 
out Christendom : but nevertheless it is all a mistake. 
God has never purposed nor promised to save the non- 
elect ; he has simply announced to the world that he 
really pities, sincerely compassionates them. Beyond 
all controversy Dr. Dabney and Dr. Toplady are in 
the same dilemma. They simply differ in the choice 
of the horn on which they shall be impaled. Dr. 
Toplady says God's universal invitations are not real, 
because they are in no essential sense the expression 
of his will. Dr. Dabney replies, " No, you are mis- 
taken, Dr. Toplady. Your logic is at fault ; these 
invitations of God are sincere ; they express his real 



2 " Princeton Review," July, 1878, p. 59. 



74 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



compassion, you err in supposing them to be promises ; 
that, they are not and were never intended to be. 

One moment's serious thought will explode these 
sophisms. The universal invitations of the gospel are 
sincere, not only because they express God's real com- 
passion, but because they are his promises to be fulfilled 
the instant the conditions are truly met. There is 
not one declaration within the pages of the Bible, 
offering peace and salvation to the troubled soul that 
is not a promise to any and every one who reads. As 
Dr. Chalmers has said : "In no place in the Bible is 
pardon addressed to any man on the footing that he is 
one of the elect ; but in all places of the Bible pardon 
is addressed to every man on the footing that he is one 
of the species. On the former footing, there would be 
no warrant to any for the faith of the gospel, for no 
man knows at the commencement of his Christianity 
that he is one of the elect. On the latter footing, 
there is a distinct warrant to all, if they so choose, for 
the faith of the gospel — for every man knows that he is 
one of the human race. It is most assuredly in his 
latter capacity and not in his former, that the calls and 
offers and entreaties of the gospel are brought to his 
door." 3 He who was " the Way, the Truth, and the 
Life," who was a perfect scourge to all hypocrites, and 
who declared that every idle word shall be brought to 
judgment, meant exactly, without any qualifications 
or evasions whatsoever, what his words seem to mean 
when he said " Come unto me, all ye that labor and 
are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my 
yoke upon you, and learn of me ; for I am meek and 
lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls. " 



3 "Theology," Vol. II., p. 422. 



AND MAN'S MORA! NATURE}. 



75 



(Matt. xi. 28, 29). Anything short of this is unmit- 
igated hypocrisy. 

SECTION IV. 

The Atonement, An Expression of God' s U7iiversal 
Love. 

Beyond all controversy the attributes and charac- 
ter of Deity should be considered with veiled faces 
and in the spirit of profound reverence. We can not 
''find out the Almighty unto perfection," for as the 
heavens are higher than the earth," so are his ways 
higher than our ways, and his thoughts than our 
thoughts. Hence as the devout theologian analyzes 
the Divine Attributes he has no intention of unduly 
magnifying one above another. Like the subsistences 
in the Godhead, each is perfect in its sphere, while 
of necessity all are related by a governing principle. 
What this central attribute of Deity is, has been va- 
riously defined, just as the student of theology has 
been most influenced by natural or by moral ideas of 
God's government. As we have seen, Calvinism has 
always taken the natural as the central principle of 
the Divine procedure, and consequently the omnipo- 
tence of God is the key which unlocks the mysteries 
of Calvinistic theology. Hence this attribute has been 
called "the first article of our Faith," while those 
who deny it are charged with being "Atheists." 
Against this false view of the Divine character many 
thoughtful men have always rebelled. Nor do the 
Scriptures speak with any uncertainty. So far as any 
one term can express the governing attribute in the 
nature of God, it is not power, nor wisdom, but love. 
" He that loveth not, knoweth not God ; for God is 



76 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

love And we have known and believed the 

love that God hath to us. God is love ; and he that 
dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." 
(i. Tohn iv. 8-16.) 

It will be interesting and profitable to notice a few 
of the many comments on this passage. Says Alford, 
"Iyove is the very essence, not merely an attribute, of 
God. It is co-essential with Him." Cowles remarks 
" Inform, the statement seems abstract, metaphysical; 
for observe, it is not that God is kind, affectionate, 
evermore manifesting his good will ; but that he is 
love itself — the very impersonation of love ; all love, 
and nothing else but love. It is of course compre- 
hensive, all embracing. It means that there can 
never be anything in him, nothing coming from him, 
that is not loving — an outgoing of His love. 

Christlieb declares, " . . . . As spirituality is the 
vital foundation of his physical and intellectual perfec- 
tions, so holy love is the internal basis of all his moral 
perfections, and a necessary deduction from the true idea 
of the absolute." 4 Delitzsch says, . . . When the 
apostle says of God, not that he is /^<?love, but that he 
/slove, i. e., that he is love in the deepest ground and 
entire circuit of his nature living itself forth, we obtain 
the disclosure — which follows, besides, from the fact, 
that he is light, absolutely free from darkness (1. John 
i. 5)— that the will which is the root of his being has 
love as its impulse, and is thus the will of love. ' ' 5 

This all controlling characteristic of the Divine 
Nature clearly and beautifully explains the sacrifice 
of Jesus Christ. He is not only ' 1 the Lamb of God 



4 " Modern Doubt and Christian Belief," p. 222. 

5 " Biblical Psychology," p. 203. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



77 



which taketh away the sin of the world," but he is 
the very Incarnation of the Father's love for every one 
whom he has created. " For God so loved the world, 
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever 
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlast- 
ing life." All attempts of the Calvinists to change 
the obvious meaning of this passage so as to favor 
their doctrine of a limited atonement have signally 
failed. The object of God's love was the world, the 
entire human race, and it was the same to all, not re- 
stricted to a certain class otherwise designated as ' ' the 
elect." The same doctrine is expounded by the Apos- 
tle Paul. ' ' For the love of Christ constraineth us ; 
because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then 
were all dead : And that he died for all, that they 
which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, 
but unto him which died for them, and rose again." 
(n. Cor. v. 14-15.) On this passage, Dr. Barnes 
says, ( ' The phrase 1 for all ' evidently means for all 
mankind j for every man. This is an exceedingly im- 
portant expression in regard to the extent of the atone- 
ment It demonstrates that the atonement was 

general, and had, in itself considered, no limitation 
and no particular reference to any one class or condi- 
tion of men, and no particular applicability to one 
class more than another." Speaking of the ministry 
of reconciliation, Paul says " that God was in Christ, 
reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their 
trespasses unto them : " (verse 19). Lange says the 
" world" " signifies the human race, and as it is here 
without the article, it means perhaps a ' whole world. ' ' ' 
" Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified 
in due time ;" (1, Tim. ii. 6). " For, therefore, we 



78 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in 
the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially 
of those that believe" (iv. 10). Of the former 
passage Alford says, ' ' This oneness of the Mediator, 
involving in itself the universality of Redemption, 
was the great subject of Christian testimony." " For 
the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath ap- 
peared to all men" (Titus ii. n). "But we see 
Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, 
for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and 
honor ; that he by the grace of God should taste death 
for every man" (Heb. ii. 9). Commenting on this 
Dr. Charles Hodge says, * ' Christ tasted death for every 
one of the objects of redemption " thus contradicting 
the plain sense of the passage ; for allowing full scope 
for all differences of opinion concerning the gender, 
the " all " is incontestably declared. The same truth 
is taught in Rom. v. 18: "Therefore, as by the 
offense of one, judgment came upon all men to con- 
demnation ; even so by the righteousness of one the 
free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." 
While this passage gives no hope to Universalism, it 
positively condemns the doctrine of a restricted atone- 
ment. " And he is the propitiation for our sins ; and 
not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole 
world" ( 1. John ii. 2). "And as Moses lifted up 
the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of 
man be lifted up : That whosoever believeth in him 
should not perish, but have eternal life" (John iii. 
14,15). The historic scene to which the Master here 
alludes is familiar to all. The Israelites were in a 
spirit of wicked distrust and bitter murmurings. As 
a punishment the Lord sent fiery serpents which de- 



and man's moral nature. ■ 79 

stroyed many of the people. The infliction had the 
desired effect : the people were humbled and sought 
the intercession of Moses. ' ' And the Lord said unto 
Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent and set it upon a pole ; 
and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, 
when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses 
made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole ; and 
it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, 
when he beheld the serpent of brass he lived." Here 
the intention and the provision were as wide as the 
disease. So, according to Jesus is the divine remedy. 
Hence, sorrowing men in all ages have found comfort 
in reading that wonderful prophecy — the fifty-third 
chapter of Isaiah. It speaks with no uncertainty of 
the universal provisions of the gospel, declaring " All 
we, like sheep, have gone astray ; we have turned 
every one to his own way ; and the Lord hath laid on 
him the iniquity of us all." According to Neander, 
the Parable of the Prodigal Son reveals the Father's 
love for the sinful and rebukes " not merely the Jew- 
ish exclusiveness, but all those limitations of God's 
purposes for the salvation of the human race, whether 
before or after Christ, which the arbitrary creeds of 
men have attributed to the divine decrees. The par- 
able clearly implies that the love of the Father contem- 
plates the salvation of all his fallen children among 
all generations of men." 6 

It will now be in order to notice one or two objec- 
tions often urged against the Arminian view of these 
and other passages, (i) It may be said, as President 
Dabney has affirmed, that these expressions of love 
mean nothing more than " a propension of benevolence 

6 " Life of Christ," p. 214. 



8o • CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

not matured into the volition to redeem, of which 
Christ's mission is a sincere manifestation to all sin- 
ners/' Without anticipating the consideration of this 
solution upon which Dr. Dabney so confidently relies, 
I may say, in passing, that it radically fails to ac- 
count for the plain, unequivocal language of the Bible. 
In all of these passages there is but one class of men 
considered. That class embraces all who are lost in 
sin. For them God has an infinite love. Christ 
came as the incarnation of that love to die for them 
that they through Him might be saved. The ex- 
pressions of God's love have, or have not a reference 
to "the elect." Dr. Dabney may take his choice. 
Whatever is declared of one is declared of all. 

This is substantially the* same answer which is to 
be made to the second objection, namely, " Christ's 
death was sufficient for all, but efficacious only for the 
elect." Thus Dr. N. L. Rice remarks, " It is objected 
again, that according to the Calvinistic view, Christ 
made no atonement for the non-elect, and our Armin- 
ian friends have urged against the doctrine all those 
passages of Scripture which represent Christ as having 
died for all men. But the word ' for, ' like all other 
prepositions, has a number of meanings. What, then, 
do they mean by affirming that Christ died for all 
men? Do they mean that he made an atonement, 
which, in consequence of his infinite dignity, is suffi- 
cient for all men ? If so, we have no controversy with 
them ; for we hold that the Atonement is of infinite 
value, and that no one is lost because its virtue is 
exhausted. Do they mean that in making an atone- 
ment Christ designed to offer salvation indiscriminately 
to all men ? If so, we agree with them. Our views of 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 8 1 

the gospel require us to preach it ' to every creature.' 
Do they mean that Christ really purposed to save all 
men by his death ? They can not mean this ; for, in 
the first place, multitudes were forever lost before he 
died, and it will scarcely be pretended that he designed 
to save them. In the second place, he certainly knew 
who would believe and be saved : for he knew all 
things ; and it would be absurd to say that he designed 
to save those he knew he never would save. " 7 I have 
purposely quoted this author at some length that his 
argument may be fairly analyzed. Notice (a) Dr. 
Rice confesses that Christ did not really purpose to save 
all men ; yet (b) Christ offers ' ' salvation indiscrimin- 
ately to all men." Query: Is Christ divided in that 
he offers a thing while at the same time he never really 
purposes to give it ? This must be, or else Dr. Rice 
uses the word ' ' purposed ' ' in the double sense of sin- 
cere desire, or honest intention and positive volition. 
The Arminian readily answers the question by saying 
Christ really purposed to save all who would freely 
yield themselves to the influences of the Holy Spirit. 
So far, the " purpose " is as wide as the race. But if 
the question of divine knowledge or foreknowledge is 
brought into the problem — which Dr. Rice raises, and 
by-the-way, one can not help wondering why a Calvin- 
ist should confound the divine purpose, or decree to 
save, with the knowledge of who would believe, — then 
the intention or purpose of Christ passes into the posi- 
tive volition to save those only who are foreseen to 
be obedient. If this is what Dr. Rice means by say- 
ing Christ ' ' certainly knew who would believe and be 
saved " he has passed into the domain of Arminian 



7 " God Sovereign and Man Free," p. 118. 



82 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

theology. If not, then this part of his argument not 
only amounts to nothing, but it makes Jesus offer to all 
men that which he never purposed to bestow, — which 
is usually designated as hypocrisy. But (c) Dr. Rice 
is generous in saying the atonement ' ' is sufficient for 
all men." Doubtless it is ; but of what account in the 
saving of sinners is its mere sufficiency unless applied 
by the divine purpose? Moreover, this language is 
not biblical. I gladly challenge any Calvinist to pro- 
duce one passage of God's Word declaring Christ did 
not die for all, or affirming that while his death is suf- 
ficient for all it is efficacious only for the elect. The 
proposition is of that scholastic spirit which can 

"The hair divide 
Between the west and southwest side," 

and would never have been thought of were it not that 
a pet theory demanded an additional prop. Dr. Jenkyn 
has truly said, "An all-sufficiency, yet not intended 
for all who are invited to partake of it, is such an awful 
imposture that I grudge the very ink that mentions it 
in connection with the Gospel of Truth." 8 

(3) With all Calvinists, Dr. Charles Hodge argues 
a limited atonement from the Express Declarations of 
Scripture. These are such passages as "Even as 
Christ loved the church and gave himself for it" 
(Eph. v. 25). "As the Father knoweth me, even so 
know I the Father, and I lay down my life for the 
sheep" (John x. 15). " Greater love hath no man than 
this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" 
(John xv. 13). The reader will notice that these 
expressions are of the same general character as Paul's 



8 " The Extent of the Atonement," p. 104. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



83 



words to Timothy — previously quoted — where God is 
declared to be the Saviour "of all men, .specially of 
those that believe." Of necessity there is a more inti- 
mate and vital relation existing between Jesus Christ 
and his followers, than there can be between him and 
those who have not exercised saving- faith. To deny 
this is to affirm the unreality of all spiritual distinc- 
tions ; hence Paul appropriately notices this relation by 
saying that while God is the Saviour of all men, yet 
he is specially so of those who love him. As Alford 
remarks, "He is the same Saviour towards, and of 
all ; but these alone appropriate his salvation." Now 
as Scripture best explains Scripture, it is certainly fair 
to say that the passages adduced by Dr. Hodge do not 
mean anything essentially different from those which 
we have been considering. If the clearly expressed 
parts of the Bible are to have the preference, if they 
are to interpret the more obscure passages, then the 
many clear and unequivocal affirmations of the uni- 
versal extent of the atonement are not to be interpreted 
by such tantalizing words as " the Atonement was suf- 
ficient for all, but efficacious only for the elect." 
Moreover, the terms "church," "sheep" and 
" friends " are susceptible of a different meaning from 
that conveyed by Dr. Hodge, namely, those foreseen 
to be true believers. As thus considered, they do sus- 
tain a peculiar relation to the Saviour — as Paul de- 
clares, and as already explained — while at the same 
time the truth for which I am here contending is fully 
vindicated. 



84 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



SECTION V. 

The Salvation of All Men, the Pleasure and Will of 

God. 

This proposition is a logical deduction from the 
universality of God's love. But not satisfied with the 
statement that the Father of Mercies ' ' with whom 
there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning ' ' 
has an infinite love for every sinful soul, the Bible 
unmistakably declares that the salvation of all men is 
according to the pleasure and will of God. "Cast 
away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye 
have transgressed ; and make you a new heart and a 
new spirit ; for why will ye die, O house of Israel ? 
For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, 
^aith the Lord God : wherefore turn yourselves, and 
live ye" (Ezek. xviii. 31, 32). "Say unto them, As I 
live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the 
death of the wicked ; but that the wicked turn from 
his way and live : turn ye, turn ye from your evil 
ways ; for why will ye die, O house of Israel ? " (Ezek. 
xxxiii. 11). "For he doth not afflict willingly, nor 
grieve the children of men" ( Lamentations iii. 33). 
Paul exhorts that * ' supplications, prayers, interces- 
sions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men," giv- 
ing as a reason, " For this is good and acceptable in 
the sight of God our Saviour ; who will have all men 
to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the 
truth" (1. Tim. ii. 3, 4). Of this passage Calvin says, 
" By this he assuredly means nothing more than that 
the way of salvation was not shut against any order of 
of men. ' ' 9 If I should say this was far from expressing 



9 " Institutes," B. III., ch. xxrv., Sec. 16. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



85 



the meaning of the passage, and that indicates a lament- 
able lack of exegetical fairness on the part of the great 
Reformer, the reader might possibly charge me with 
being prejudiced. Let Alford speak, who certainly 
can not be charged with Arminian tendencies. " Cal- 
vin most unworthily shuffles out of the decisive testi- 
mony borne by this passage to universal redemption, 
saying, ' The Apostle simply means, that no people or 
rank in the world is excluded from salvation.' " The 
testimony of Dr. Albert Barnes is equally explicit. 
' ' This verse (4th) proves ( 1 ) that salvation is provided 
for all : for if God wished all men to be saved, he 
would undoubtedly make provision for their salvation; 
and if he had not made such provision, it could not be 
said that he desired their salvation, since no one can 
doubt that he has power to provide for the salvation 
of all ; (2) that salvation should be offered to all men; 
for if God desires it, it is right for his ministers to 
announce that desire, and if he desires it, it is not 
proper for them to announce anything contrary to this: 
(3) that men are to blame if they are not saved. If 
God did not wish their salvation, and if he had made 
no provision for it, they could not be to blame if they 
rejected the gospel. If God wishes it, and has made 
provision for it, and they are not saved, the sin must 
be their own. ' ' This is anything but sound Calvinism, 
but nevertheless it rings with good common sense and 
is Scripturally consistent. 1 'The Lord is not slack 
concerning his promise, as some men count slackness ; 
but is longsufFering to usward, not willing that any 
should perish, but that all should come to repentance" 
(11. Peter iii. 9). 

A brief resurn£ of the Bible argument on this 



86 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

subject may assist the reader in determining the cor- 
rectness of the position here maintained. We have 
found ( i) that all men are invited to partake of a 
common salvation, Calvinists themselves being the 
judges. (2) That these universal invitations are 
uttered in all Godly sincerity. (3) That they are 
thus offered because Jesus Christ has made an unlim- 
ited atonement, has tasted death for every man. (4) 
That this universal atonement is the expression of the 
sincere pleasure and will of God, who is " not willing 
that any should perish, but that all should come to 
repentance. ' ' 

This naturally leads us to the consideration of the 
question, What is meant by the "will of God " as 
used in the above passages ? In the Princeton Review 
of July, 1878, President Robert X,. Dabney considered 
this question in an article entitled " God's Indiscrimi- 
nate Proposals of Mercy as Related to His Power, 
Wisdom and Sincerity." It is the best Calvinistic 
solution with which I am acquainted, and I should 
be constrained to accept it were I not convinced that 
its foundation principles are decidedly fallacious. In 
former pages I have alluded to, and quoted a few sen- 
tences from this article. I now propose to examine it 
more thoroughly, and, so far as possible, fairly test it 
upon its own merits. 

Commencing his article, Dr. Dabney says, " If God 
makes proposals of mercy to men, who, he foresees, 
will certainly reject them and perish, and whom he 
immutably purposes to leave without effectual calling, 
how can his power and wisdom be cleared, save at the 
expense of his sincerity ? or his sincerity at the ex- 
pense of his wisdom or power ? This is obviously the 



AND MAN'S MORAI, NATURE. 



87 



point in the Reformed or Augustinian theology most 
difficult of adjustment The occasion for call- 
ing in question either God's sincerity, or his wisdom, 
or power, upon the supposition of an unconditional 
decree, arises from three classes of Scriptures. One is 
the indiscriminate offer of salvation. Another is the 
ascription of Christ's sacrifice to love for ' the world ' 
as its motive, and the calling of him the 'Lamb 
of God who taketh away the sins of the world,' 
'giveth himself for the world,' etc. The third is 
composed of those which present God as pitying all 
sinners, and even those who are never saved. Every 
reader's mind will suggest texts of each class. Now, 
it is notorious that these furnish the armory from 
which the Arminians equip their most pertinacious 
attacks on Calvinism ; that it is on these texts the 
Calvinistic exegesis labors most and displays the most 
uncertainty ; and that the usual Calvinistic solutions 
of them are scornfully denounced as inadequate by 
their opponents. These facts, of course, do not prove 
that the Arminians are right ; but they evince the 
occasion for, and utility of, more satisfactory discus- 
sion." 1 

Doubtless the reader rejoices with me in knowing 
that President Dabney is not of that class of Calvinists 
who think their theology beyond improvement. He has 
clearly and satisfactorily stated the problem. He has 
confessed the seeming strength of the Arminian posi- 
tion, and the corresponding difficulties of the " usual 
Calvinistic solutions." Let us now candidly examine 
his argument in behalf of a limited atonement. 



1 Pages 33, 34 



88 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

The main point in the solution is " best indicated 
by an analogical instance." Thus he says, " A hu- 
man ruler may have full power and authority over the 
punishment of a culprit, may declare consistently his 
sincere compassion for him, and may yet freely elect 
to destroy him." Washington is selected as the ruler 
and Major Andre as the culprit. Chief-Justice Mar- 
shall in his " Iyife of Washington " speaks of this 
historic scene as follows : " Perhaps on no occasion of 
his life did the commander-in-chief obey with more 
reluctance the stern mandates of duty and of policy." 
Commenting on this, Dr. Dabney says, "Washington 
had plenary power to kill or to save alive. His com- 
passion for the criminal was real and profound. Yet 
he signed his death-warrant with spontaneous decis- 
ion. The solution is not the least difficult either for 
philosphy or common sense. ' ' After analyzing human 
volitions, Dr. Dabney returns to the analogy. He 
says " Washinton's volition to sign the death-warrant 
of Andre did not arise from the fact that his compas- 
sion was slight or feigned, but from the fact that it 
was rationally counterpoised by a complex of superior 
judgments and propensions of wisdom, duty, patriot- 
ism, and moral indignation." "Let us suppose that 
one of Andre's intercessors (and he had them — even 
among the Americans) standing by, and hearing the 
commanding general say, as he took up the pen to 
sign the fatal paper, ' I do this with the deepest reluc- 
tance and pity ; ' should have retorted : ' Since you 
are supreme in this matter, and have full bodily abil- 
ity to throw down that pen, we shall know by your 
signing this warrant that your pity is hypocritical ! ' 
The petulance of this charge would have been equal 



AND MAN'S MORAIy NATURE. 



89 



to its folly. The pity was real ; but was restrained by 
superior elements of motive : Washington had official 
and bodily power to discharge the criminal ; but he 
had not the sanction of his own wisdom and justice. 
Thus his pity was genuine, and yet his volition not to 
indulge it free and sovereign." This is followed by 
an exposition of the Arminian and the ordinary Cal- 
vinistic views, which are to "be exploded by explain- 
ing the nature of motive and free rational volition." 
Here the principle is applied to the question at issue. 
" The correct answer to the Arminian is to show him 
that the existence of a real and unfeigned pity in God 
for ' him that dieth ' does not imply that God has ex- 
hausted his divine power in vain to renew the creat- 
ure's ' free will' in a way consistent with its nature, 
because the pity may have been truly in God, and yet 
countervailed by superior motives, so that he did not 
will to exert his omnipotence for that sinner's re- 
newal." 

' ' The other extreme receives the same reply : the 
absence of an omnipotent (and inevitably efficient) 
volition to renew that soul does not prove the absence 
of a true compassion in God for him ; and for the same 
reason the propension may have been in God, but 
restrained from rising into a volition by superior 
rational motives. " 2 It is quite probable that Dr. 
Dabney has made himself sufficiently clear to the 
reader ; but desiring to have the principle thoroughly 
understood I will conclude this part of the argument 
in his own words, namely, "that God does have com- 
passion for the reprobate, but not express volition to 
save them, because his infinite wisdom regulates his 



2 Pages 36, 37, 38. 



90 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

whole will and guides and harmonizes (not suppresses) 
all its active principles." 3 

To our author 1 ' the supposed obstacles ' ' against 
the adoption of this solution, "seem to class them- 
selves under three heads. ( i ) The difference between 
a finite and an infinite almighty governor makes the 
parallel worthless. (2) Such a theory of motive and 
free agency may not be applied to the divine will, 
because of God's absolute simplicity of being, and the 
unity of his attributes with his essence, the total lack 
of 1 passive powers ' in his glorious nature, and the unity 
and eternity of his whole will as to all events. It is 
feared that the parallel would misrepresent God's 
activities of will by a vicious anthropomorphism. (3) 
No such balancing of subjective motives takes place 
without inward strivings, which would be inconsistent 
with God's immutability and blessedness." 4 

Not wishing to forget the real question at issue I 
shall rest the case on the first objection suggested by 
Dr. Dabney, namely, "The difference between a finite 
and an infinite almighty governor makes the parallel 
worthless." Our author disposes of this objection by 
affirming two propositions, namely: (1) That incase 
of the lost there are other reasons known only by God, 
than indifference to their fate, or a conscious inability 
to save. (2) That the ultimate end of God's govern- 
ment is his own glory. 

To all intents and purposes the first statement 
belongs to the second. This is conceded by Dr. 
Dabney. Speaking of the ultimate ends of God's 
government as not including "the happiness of the 



3 p. 61. 

4 Page 38. 



AND MAN'S MORAIv NATURE. 



91 



largest possible number of sinners, but something else 
still more worthy of God ; " he says, ' ' "When we have 
admitted this, we have virtually admitted that God 
may see, in his own omniscience, a rational ground 
other than inability for restraining his actual propen- 
sion of pity towards a given sinner." 

The argument, therefore, is restricted to the one 
consideration whether optimism is, or is not, a correct 
philosophical solution of God's government. Upon 
this question there is a great diversity of opinion even 
among eminent Calvinists. Speaking of the hypothesis 
of Leibnitz, Dr. Chalmers says: " If it be not an 
offensive weapon with which we may beat down and 
demolish the strongholds of the sceptic, it is, at least, 
an armor of defense with which we may cause all his 
shafts to fall harmless at our feet." 5 

Dr. Fitch of New Haven fame speaks much more 
positively sajdng, " Show us a God who, able to ad- 
vance the holiness of the universe forever and to pro- 
tect it from all the inroads of sin, does nevertheless, 
in the choice of his heart respecting a whole universe, 
actually reject such protection, and prefer to gratify 
his subjects with a mere exhibition at the expense of 
the sin and misery of one or many of his subjects ; and 
we shall always see him purposely leading off the holy 
into sin and preferring their rebellion to obedience." G 

Beyond all question this is a radical departure from 
Old School theology. It is in the right direction ; for 
whether we accept or reject the philosophical termin- 
ology of optimism the substantial truth of the doctrine 
is rapidly gaining acceptance. As it is a question 



5 As quoted by Bledsoe. " Theodicy," p. 185. 
rt As quoted in Griffin's Divine Efficiency, p. 31. 



92 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

upon which even Calvinists do not agree, and as it 
involves a critical study of the Intuitions, I shall 
dismiss it by affirming that which I regard as a moral 
axiom, namely, God's glory can never ignore the 
rights of his creatures. 

Inasmuch as the above objection is the only one 
noticed by Dr. Dabney as vitiating his analogy, I sup- 
pose it never occurred to him that there were other 
objections far more serious. They will now be con- 
sidered. The analogy is fallacious because it offers no 
just comparison between Washington and the spy on 
one hand, and God and the non-elect on the other. 
Of course I do not claim that the analogy must be 
perfect in all respects. By no means. Allowing for 
all reasonable divergencies, I yet claim that the anal- 
ogy is radically defective, because (i) The language 
of Washington is essentially different from that used 
by the Lord God. I agree with Dr. Dabney that 
Washington's pity for Andre was sincere ; but observe, 
the commanding general never conveyed, by word or 
hint, to any one the idea that he could and would save 
the unfortunate officer. On the contrary, he made the 
one impression on Andre's friends that the spy must 
die. Had he told the officer or his friends that he 
should be saved, had he made the impression over and 
over again that the spy could be saved, while, at the 
same time, knowing that it was not true, then it would 
have been in order for Dr. Dabney to have spoken of 
Washington's supposed sincerity. But while the 
commander-in-chief did not thus speak, God has so 
declared to the world. He has not only expressed 
sympathy and pity for the non-elect, but he has in- 
vited them to the same salvation which is given to the 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



93 



elect. He urges them to accept, tells them that Jesus 
died that they might live, makes the impression upon 
all of them that he is waiting for them to come that 
he may bestow the gift of eternal life upon them, 
while at the same time, according to Dr. Dabney, God 
has never ' ' purposed ' ' any such thing. If this would 
not be insincerity, then I confess I do not know what 
it could be. Nor do I see how the so-called ' ' solution ' ' 
adds one ray of light. Nay, it is like the theology of 
Job's friends which " darkeneth counsel by words 
without knowledge " in that it creates a new difficulty 
in trying to solve an old one. The sincerity of God's 
pity is saved at the expense of his sincerity in offer- 
ing salvation to all. But possibly the reader may say 
that I have misunderstood Dr. Dabney in supposing 
him to teach that God does promise salvation to all : 
I reply, if this be so, then so much the worse for the 
theory. Beyond all controversy God offers salvation 
to all. This, as we have seen in a previous section, is 
conceded by nearly all Calvinists. If this truth is 
denied by Dr. Dabney, then a " Thus saith the Lord " 
will be sufficient to silence him. But he does not 
deny it : on the contrary he repeatedly asserts it. In 
the first place, the very title of the article proves it — 
" God's indiscriminate proposals of mercy." Again, 
he says, ' ' Let us now represent to ourselves the large 
number of texts in which God entreats sinners to turn 
from the ways of destruction. They are addressed by 
him to all men, without distinction of elect and non- 
elect. When, for instance, the Redeemer commands 
us to 1 preach the gospel to every creature' it is im- 
possible by any exegetical pressure to make the words 
mean ' every elect creature ' because he adds in the 



94 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

next verse (Mark xvi. 16), 'He that believeth not 
shall be damned.' This possible subject is among the 
' every creature ' body to whom the overtures of mercy 
are to be made. But no ' elect creature ' can be 
damned. Now, no straightforward mind can ever be 
satisfied that the utterance of entreaties to shun de- 
struction are not the expression of compassion, if they 
come from a sincere person. The explanations of the 
gospel calls to the non -elect which do not candidly 
recognize this truth, must ever carry a fatal weight 
with the great body of Christians." 7 

Doubtless this confession is sufficient. God does 
make ' ' indiscriminate proposals of mercy ' ' : he does 
offer Jesus Christ as a Redeemer to every creature : 
he does entreat every creature ' ' to shun destruction ' ' ; 
he does make the impression upon every creature that 
he may be saved : and yet, this is all one grand mis- 
take, a stupendous delusion, for he has "never pur- 
posed nor promised to save " all. I do not know how 
Dr. Dabney would define a "promise," but it seems 
to me his solution involves a serious self-contradiction. 

(2) Equally fallacious is the analogy between 
Andre and the non-elect. The spy is justly called a 
" culprit," a " criminal " ; of course the non-elect are 
not only assumed to be such, but are declared to be 
worthy of eternal condemnation. If this were true, if 
the decree of passing by the non-elect is conditioned 
on the divine foreknowledge of their character, then 
so far Dr. Dabney would remain untouched by this 
argument. All Calvinists are supralapsarians or sub- 
lapsarians. In a subsequent chapter more than a pass- 
ing thought will be given to these terms. At present 



' p. 58. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE). 



95 



let it suffice to say the supralapsarians affirm that before 
creation, and hence before the existence of any human 
moral character, God determined to save some and to 
pass others by. The sublapsarians declare this doctrine 
harsh and unreasonable, and maintain that God's decree 
to save or not to save presupposes the race as fallen ; 
and therefore as deserving of condemnation. Concern- 
ing this Dr. Dabney says, supralapsarians retort that 
this scheme makes God's decree as truly conditioned 
on the creature's action as the Arminian, though on a 
different condition. So the debate proceeds." 8 

Now it is evident that if Dr. Dabney had claimed 
to be a Sublapsarian Calvinist, so far my second argu- 
ment would not be valid. But he makes no such 
claim. On the contrary, he thinks the distinction is 
useless and should never have been made. 

' ' But he who apprehends the action of the infinite 
mind reasonably and Scripturally at once, sees that, 
while the sublapsarian is right in his spirit and aim, 
both parties are wrong in their method, and the issue 

is one which should never have been raised 

One result decreed is to depend on another result 
decreed. But as the decree is God's consciousness, all 
is equally primary. Thus there will be neither supra- 
nor zVz/ra-lapsarian, and no room for their debate." 9 
Consequently I am strictly within the bounds of Chris- 
tian fairness when I say that the analogy of Dr. Dab- 
ney is radically wrong in assuming the criminal state 
of the non-elect. Andre was a spy : as such he was 
extremely dangerous to the American cause. As a 
patriot, Washington was bound, by every sacred im- 

8 P. 47. 

9 P. 47- 



g6 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

pulse, by the dictates of sober judgment, to sign the 
death-warrant. But no such language can be used in 
reference to the non-elect. As yet they have no exist- 
ence : hence they have no moral character. Conse- 
quently where is the reason, where is the sense of 
justice which must be satisfied by the eternally decreed 
rejection of the non-elect? Truly we search in vain 
for it, as it nowhere exists except in the Calvinistic 
dogma that God's glory demands the eternal condem- 
nation of the non-elect. 

This brings us to the consideration of the third 
objection against Dr. Dabney's argument : namely 
( 3 ) It is grounded on the Arminian doctrine of Fore- 
knowledge. Of course this is a serious charge to bring 
against a Calvinistic writer. Nor do I suppose for a 
moment that Dr. Dabney will admit its correctness, 
but I doubt not the reader will be able to judge of the 
merits of the case, and to him, therefore, I leave the 
issue. In different parts of the article we are told 
"that God's election to life is unconditioned," " that 
God's selection of Jacob was not conditioned on his 
foreseen penitence or faith." 1 

Rejecting divine foresight as the condition of elec- 
tion, it is more than probable that Dr. Dabney also 
rejects it as the condition why some men are not 
elected: because (a) This, as we have seen, (see Chap- 
ter ii. of Part I.) is consistent Calvinism. Calvin says > 
" No one can deny but God foreknew Adam's fall, and 
foreknew it because he had ordained it by his own 
decree." Equally explicit is the Westminster Confes- 
sion of Faith. " Although God knows whatsoever 
may or can come to pass, upon all supposed condi- 

i Pages 50, 51. 



AND MAN'S MORAI, NATURE. 



97 



tions ; yet hath he not decreed anything because he 
foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to 
pass, upon such conditions." I^uther taught "All 
things whatever, arise from, and depend upon the 
divine appointment ; whereby it was preordained who 
should receive the word of life, and who should dis- 
believe it ; who should be delivered from their sins, 
and who should be hardened in them : who should be 
justified and who condemned." Much more might 
be said, but doubtless I have quoted enough to show 
that Calvinism has always denied that the decree to 
pass by the non-elect was conditioned on man's fore- 
seen rejection, (b) Dr. Dabney tells us that to the 
supralapsarians the order of the decrees adopted by the 
sublapsarians is "as truly conditioned on the creat- 
ure' s action as the Arminian, though on a different 
condition. ' ' This recognizes the essentially Arminian 
tendency of making some condition the basis of the 
decrees, (c) Dr. Dabney declares that the terms 
1 ' supralapsarian ' ' and ' ' sublapsarian " — the only place 
where there is any possible reason for mentioning the 
decrees in connection with foresight — are wrong, and 
the issue "should never have been raised." (d) 
Moreover, the decrees are one. " The decree which 
determines so vast a multitude of parts is itself a unit. 
The whole all-comprehending thought is one, co-eta- 
neous intuition, the whole decree one act of the will." 
This clearly shows that if it is wrong to say that elec- 
tion is based on divine foresight, it is equally wrong 
to say it of reprobation. Hence, I ask in all serious- 
ness, What right has Dr. Dabney to speak so often and 
fluently of the divine foresight ? He does this repeat- 
edly. The first sentence in his article begins with the 



98 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

assumption, 1 1 If God makes proposals of mercy to 
men, who he foresees will certainly reject them, and 
perish. " Speaking of Jacob's sins and of his election, 
he asks " Did not God feel, notwithstanding this prop- 
erly overruling rational motive, the abhorrence for 
Jacob's foreseen original sin and actual meanness, 
suitable for an infinitely holy nature to feel, and nat- 
urally tending, had it not been counterpoised, to 
Jacob's righteous rejection ? Again, " God doubtless 
felt then a similar moral reprehension for Jacob's fore- 
seen, supplanting falsehood to that which he felt for 
Esau's heady self-will. " " We dare not say that God 
could distinctly foresee all Jacob's supplanting false- 
hood, and feel no disapprobation whatever ; it would 
come near to blasphemy." 2 " Foresee," indeed! 
Why not say, decreed or determined " falsehood " ? 
Doubtless because it would not only come near to being, 
but would be blasphemy. Yet the latter is the real 
meaning of Dr. Dabney ; or at least what his position 
logically and irresistibly means. I trust the reader now 
sees the justness of m}^ charge against Dr. Dabney. 
His article is permeated with, and many of his assump- 
tions are based upon, the divine foresight of men's 
actions. As a Calvinistic argument it is extremely 
fallacious : yet it is important because it shows the 
constant tendency of Calvinists to leave their position, 
and adopt one-half of the Arminian's. 

(4) Another objection against the solution which 
we are considering, is that it makes a radical antagon- 
ism between God and Jesus Christ. As we have seen, 
President Dabney claims that God has never purposed 
nor promised to save the non-elect. He is an earnest 



2 Pages 35, 52, 53, 55. 



AND man's moral nature. 



99 



advocate of the divine sincerity in the expressions of 
compassion ; but he always maintains ' ' that an im- 
mutable and sovereign God never had but one will 
(one purpose or volition) as to this lost man ; as a faith- 
ful God would never publish any other volition than 
the one he entertained, but that it was entirely 
consistent for God to compassionate where he never pur- 
posed nor promised to save, because this sincere com- 
passion was restrained within the limits God announced 
by his own wisdom." Granting this — for the sake 
of the argument — I affirm that Jesus Christ went 
far beyond it, teaching that so far as his purpose or 
will was concerned it was thwarted by the unbelief of 
men. Although the truth is quite prominently revealed 
in the Gospels, yet perhaps it is most impressively 
taught in the Lamentation of Jesus over Jerusalem. 
" O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the proph- 
ets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how 
often would I have gathered thy children together, 
even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, 
and ye would not " ( Matt, xxiii. 37). It is true, Dr. 
Dabney not only notices this passage but also shows 
the absurdities of many Calvinistic interpretations : 
but while this is justly admired by all Arminians, they 
can not escape the conviction that the new solution 
makes the Father and the Son antagonistic. Beyond 
all controversy the tears which Jesus shed upon this 
occasion were the outward manifestation of sincere 
pity. Had the Saviour remained silent, so far forth as 
this scene is concerned, Dr. Dabney's position might 
be correct. But such was not the fact. The Master 
spoke, declaring that his intention would have resulted 
in their salvation had they not prevented. Beyond all 



IOO CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

dispute, this event reveals the wicked intention, pur- 
pose or will of the Jews as opposing and thwarting the 
intention, purpose or will of the Saviour. Thus says 
ISTeander, ' 1 The earnest exclamation of Christ, recorded 
in Luke xiii. 34, Matt, xxiii. 37, distinctly implies 
that he had often endeavored, by his personal teaching 
in Jerusalem, to rouse the people to repentance and 
conversion that they might be saved from the ruin 
then impending over them. ' ' 3 

Dr. Dabney truly says : ' ' It is our happiness to 
believe that when we see Jesus weeping over lost Jeru- 
salem, we 1 have seen the Father ' ; we have received 
an insight into the divine benevolence and pity." 
No less truly do the words of Jesus reveal the Father's 
purpose or volition to save, thwarted by the perversity 
of determined sinners. In a different sense from that 
meant by Dr. Dabne3 T do I quote his words, saying : 
"Some better solution must be found, then, of this 
wondrous and blessed paradox, of omnipotent love 
lamenting those whom 3-et it did not save. ' ' 4 Unless 
Dr. Dabney can purify his solution of the four objec- 
tions which are now before the reader, that which he 
rejects as Pelagian — " freewill " — is yet to be triumph- 
ant. 

Concerning the will of God I ask, in the words of 
Dr. Dabne3 T , ' 1 Why not let the Scriptures mean what 
the3' so plainl3 T strive to declare ? " In them the will 
of God is revealed in two different aspects, namety, 
the actual and the ideal. The ideal will of God is the 
unconditioned expression of his sincere desires. It is 
that which he wishes to do, and would accomplish 

3 " Life of Christ," p. 157. 

4 p. 61. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



IOI 



were he not prevented by some exterior cause or causes. 
Thus it is God's will, volition, or purpose, ideally ex- 
pressed, that the wicked should not perish, but that 
all should come to repentance. For this goal he 
strives with all the influences at his command. Yet 
infallibly knowing who will yield to the influences of 
the Holy Spirit, his actual will, purpose, or volition, 
is completely realized in the salvation of all true be- 
lievers. Hence, the atonement, is — in one sense — 
limited, but the limitation is manward instead of God- 
ward. As has been admirably said by Dr. John 
Miley : ■ 1 Nothing respecting the atonement is more 
certain than the real conditional^ of its saving grace. 
Hence, it is a mere assumption that the atonement is 
necessarily saving, and, therefore, that the actual sav- 
ing is the extent of it With an atonement in 

vicarious suffering sufficient for all, but really condi- 
tional in the saving result, its universality is in full 

logical accord with a limited actual salvation 

Hence, eternal destinies are determined according as 
the gospel is received or rejected." 5 

At this stage of the discussion — while in the full 
light of the atoning love of the Lord Jesus Christ— it 
is proper to notice the recent theological movement 
among evangelical Congregationalists. It is variously 
designated. Opponents have called it " The Andover 
Controversy," "The New Departure." For conven- 



5 " The Atonement In Christ," pp. 320, 324, 326. <; There is but one ex- 
planation of the helpless position and ethical poverty of newborn man, 
and of his subjection to the law of gradual development, to-wit : that over 
him and his being, neither divine omnipotence nor divine love holds un- 
divided sway , but his own freedom is a co-operative factor, and his own 
acts condition both the operations and communications of God " Dorner. 
''Bib. Sacra," 1879, p. 54. 



IQ2 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



ietice its friends have adopted the term ' ' New Theol- 
ogy," or have described it as a "Renaissance," It 
has two important features — the positive and the neg- 
ative. It believes and therefore speaks. It doubts, 
and therefore questions. Hence its relative strength 
and weakness. Its affirmations are not new. As has 
been said by an able advocate, ' 1 the3 T prevailed in the 
first centuries of the church, while the stream ran 
clear from the near fountain, and they have appeared 
all along in individual minds and schools, as the 
higher peaks of a mountain range catch the sunshine, 
while the base is enveloped in mist and shadow— not 
many, and often far separate, but enough to show the 
trend and to bear witness to the light." 6 

Hence the 1 ' New Theology " is a strong protest 
against, and a radical abandonment of Calvinism. In 
some important respects it affiliates with Arminianism. 
The chief antagonisms with the latter are in its prin- 
ciples of Eschatology, which, while drawn from va- 
rious sources ma}^ be more directly traced to Dr. Dorner. 
He teaches that salvation is conditioned on the 
personal acceptance of the Saviour. All human beings 
of whatever age or condition - who have not exercised 
a bona fide determination for or against the historic 
Christ, will have this opportunity in the future life. 
This acceptance or rejection — before or after death — is 
necessary to decide the eternal destiny of the soul. 7 

What that destiny will be, is not affirmed by Dor- 
ner nor by his American allies. He concedes that 
' 1 the exegetical grounds for the statement that some 
will be forever lost, are indeed preponderant " In his 

g Rev. T. T. Munger. " The Freedom of Faith,'.' p. 3. 

" See " System of Christian Doctrine," Vol. IV , pp. 409, 412. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. IO3 

" Orthodox theology of To-Day," Dr, Newman Smyth 
says the Scriptures ' ' hold up no promise of the here- 
after to any man who here and now determines him- 
self against the Spirit of Christ." Answering some 
questions propounded by members of the Ecclesiasti- 
cal Council at New Haven, Sept. 20, 1882, he said, 
"There is nothing definite in the Scripture with re- 
gard to a possible future probation." Consequently, 
so far as the ' ' New Theology ' ' postulates a future 
probation, it finds its justification in the moral axiom 
that a fair or ' ' decisive probation ' ' is the condition of 
a divine condemnation ; and from a few obscure pas- 
sages of Scripture, notably 1. Pet. iii. 19, 20, and iv. 
6. But it is by no means certain that Peter teaches 
this doctrine. Scholars of equal piety and learning 
do not agree. Each side may justly claim a large 
number of distinguished exegetes. But granting all 
that may be fairly claimed by the advocates of a future 
probation, their position is Scripturally untenable ; the 
most that can be claimed from these passages is that 
Christ preached the gospel of salvation to all who 
lived before his advent. As we know nothing of the 
reasons for the supposed proclamation ; as there is not 
the least hint that the alleged mercy is extended to 
any who have lived under the Christian Dispensation, 
the limits of the discussion are greatly circumscribed. 
But this is not the end of the matter. The Scriptural 
argument is not simply negative. The Word of God 
knows no future probation for any who have lived since 
the birth of the Christian Church. The many prom- 
ises and warnings presuppose and assert that our eter- 
nal destiny is determined by our earthly character. 
Delitzsch has well said, "If this psedagogic form of 



104 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

world be destroyed, man is, and remains, that which 
he has become within himself. He is, and remains ; 
he is not annihilated ; for Scripture no more teaches 
the final annihilation of the wicked than it does their 
apokatastasis or restoration. Human reason would 
like in one way or another to abolish the dualism with 
which the history of the world closes. Let her do it 
upon her own responsibility, but let her not falsify 
the Scripture. This teaches an eternal personal con- 
tinuance of all personal beings, and a continuance 
fundamentally conditioned by what they have become 
in time." 8 

Hence, so far as a fair probation is the condition of 
final destiny, the Scripture's predicate it to the race. 
Here then, is the crucial question, What is a fair or 
decisive probation ? Dorner's definition is untenable 
because its legitimate conclusions are contradicted by 
the Word. As against Calvinism, he is right in main- 
taining that each soul will be treated justly, yea, ac- 
cording to the yearnings of infinite Love. The idea 
of a probation has no place in the Reformed Theology. 
Extremes meet. One unduly exalts, and the other 
denies probation. The Scriptural idea of probation 
involves (i) Sufficient intelligence to distinguish 
between right and wrong. ( 2 ) Ample power to choose 
the right and reject the wrong. So far as a personal 
acceptance of Jesus Christ is necessary to salvation, 
there is another element in probation, namely, (3) 
Sufficient knowledge of his atoning love as to justify 
a faith in him. 

Wherever this last condition does not exist a per- 
sonal acceptance of the Saviour is not necessary to sal- 

8 "System of Biblical Psychology," p. 554. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURK. IO5 

vation. " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, bap- 
tizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost." " For whosoever shall call 
upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then 
shall they call on him in whom they have not be- 
lieved ? ' ' and how shall they believe in him of whom 
they have not heard ? and how shall they hear without 
a preacher ? " 4 ' Then Peter opened his mouth and said, 
Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons : 
but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh 
righteousness is accepted with him" (Actsx. 34, 35). 
' ' For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do 
by nature the things contained in the law, these, 
having not the law, are a law unto themselves ; 
which shew the work of the law written in their 
hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their 
thoughts the meanwhile accusing, or else excusing, 
one another" (Rom. ii. 14, 15). In all ages there 
has been a spirit of faith in God which has been gra- 
ciously counted for righteousness. The light may 
have been dim, the faith very imperfect ; but the 
loving Father saw the spirit of receptivity, knew the 
inner strivings after a nobler life and the prompt yield- 
ing to the Spirit's influences : hence every responsible 
being has a fair probation. God knows all the condi- 
tions of each soul. He has an infinite understanding 
of the surroundings, the inherited tendencies, the 
hopes and fears, the love and hate by which each 
character is formed, and therefore, unerringly judges in 
accordance with eternal right and infinite love. 

Let it not be said that this view undervalues the 
atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ. On the con- 
trary it exalts him and his work by postulating the 



105 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

atonement as the basis of God's dealings with the 
race. 

According to Arminian principles the divine prom- 
ise of a Saviour was the condition of race propagation. 
Hence, the universality of the Holy Spirit's work. 
The Old Testament saints were enlightened and 
guided by his influences. The divine promise on 
which they relied (Heb. xi. 13) were fulfilled in 
Christ. They were saved through a prospective 
Saviour, while we are saved through the historic 
Saviour. 

So far, there is no need for affirming a future pro- 
bation : hence the second phase of the subject refers 
to irresponsible adults and dying infants. Both 
classes are in the same moral condition of irresponsi- 
bility. As members of the human race they are in- 
deed subject to those physical and psychological laws 
by which man exists. Their moral natures are disor- 
ganized : they have sinward tendencies, which in the 
responsible, result in a free determination to evil : but 
as moral responsibility is the fundamental condition 
of sin, they are not and can not be justly called sinners. 
Sin is an impossibility without a free choice with power 
to the contrary. Of course this proposition is appli- 
cable only to those who have never deprived them- 
selves of this power by previous sinning. 

These fundamental principles clearly understood, 
it is legitimate to affirm the salvation of all dying in- 
fants and irresponsible adults. True, the question is 
speculative ; but as it is not condemned by Scripture 
its admissiblity can not be denied. The Master's 
allusions to and gracious reception of little children 
confirm the hypothesis. The mode by which salva- 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 107 

tion is bestowed is also speculative. Excluding all 
theories of baptismal regeneration, the following are 
the principal suppositions : ( i) All dying infants be- 
come moral agents after death. Exercising a holy 
choice they ' ' are saved on the ground of the atone- 
ment and by regeneration." This seems to be the 
prevailing view of Congregationalists. Prof. Joseph 
Cook says, " As they have not learned the evils of sin, 
it is to be hoped that in death at the sight of God's 
face, they will acquire entire harmony of soul with 
him." 9 Prof. G. F. Wright, D. D., says, ". . . . 
our general confidence in God's abounding mercy leads 
us to believe that he secures their development under 
such circumstances that they will be saved." 1 Doubt- 
less this is substantially the view of Prof. Egbert C. 
Smyth : but he disagrees with Mr. Cook in affirming 
that it necessarily involves a future probation. (2) 
All dying infants are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. 
This is the Presbyterian doctrine. The Westminster 
Confession of Faith says, " Elect infants, dying in 
infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through 
the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he 
pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are 
incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry 
of the word." (3) All infants enter the world justi- 
fied and therefore saved. This is the view which has 
most prevailed in the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
although not a few of its members accept the second 
theory. Leading Arminians, including Wesley, 
Fletcher and Fisk have earnestly maintained that so 
far as infant justification or regeneration exists, it "is 

9 " New Departures in and from Orthodoxy." 
1 " Bib. Sac.," 1874, p. 545- 



I08 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



not congenital, but post-genital." The position is 
ably stated by Dr. D. D. Whedon. " The born indi- 
vidual, thereby, though not judicially condemned, is 
displacent, and, as unholy, is offensive to God ; and 
so the reconciliation of that displacency, in order that 
God's face may shine upon him, is a blood-bought 
grace. That unholiness is so expiated, and that divine 
displacency is, through Christ's sole merits, so propi- 
tiated, that the infant's actual guiltlessness may be 
divinely recognized and held by God available for his 
justification as truly as that unreal, but virtual, guilt- 
lessness of the adult procured through pardon. He 
thereby stands in the same essential gracious position 
as the forgiven and justified adult. No justice, hu- 
man or divine, can indeed pardon the guiltless, just 
because there is nothing to pardon. But pardon and 
declaratory justification are two things. Christ, by 
his self-oblation, is entitled, as our Advocate, to de- 
clare the infant's justification, unworthy though he 
be through his sinward nature, against all who would 
lay charge against him. ' Who shall lay anything to 
the charge of God's elect ? It is God that justifieth,' 
just because ' it is Christ that died.' And thus being 
justified and reconciled, the infant becomes fit subject 
for the gracious influence of the Spirit that cures that 
sinwardness and regenerates the nature ; so that 
( whether we use the term regenerate or not ) the infant 
is in the same essential condition as that into which 
the justified and regenerate adult is brought by volun- 
tary faith." 2 

The conception is beautiful and logically self-con- 



2 "Methodist Quarterly Review," 1883, p. 757. See also the same Re- 
view for 1873, p. 131. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



109 



sistent. Its advocates are not so presumptuous as to 
think there are no objections. On the contrary ad- 
verse arguments have been fairly considered, and, in 
their opinion, satisfactorily answered. I shall not 
attempt to decide the question. My purpose is real- 
ized if I have shown that the salvation of dying 
infants and irresponsible adults does not necessarily 
demand a future probation. 3 

3 For an admirable presentation of the adequacy of man's present 
probation see Whedon's " Will." Chap. XI. " Equation of Probational 
Advantages." The general subject is also discussed in " Bib. Sacra," 1881, 
p. 622, " Is Salvation Possible without a Knowledge of the Gospel ? " and 
in " The New Englander," 1882, p. 751, " Provision and Method of Salva- 
tion." 



CHAPTER II. 

Calvinism Teaches Infant* Damnation. 

1 ' I am not aware that any intelligent Christian 
can be found who maintains the unauthorized and 
appalling position that infant children, who are not 
guilty of any actual sin, either outwardly or inwardly, 
will be doomed to misery in the world to come. 

' ' On this particular point our opinions have been 
often misrepresented. ( We are said to hold that God 
dooms a whole race of innocent creatures to destruc- 
tion, or considers them all deserving of destruction, 
for the sin of one man. Now, when I examine the 
writings of the earlier Calvinists generally on the sub- 
ject of original sin, I find nothing which resembles 
such a statement as this." — Rev. Leonard Woods, 
D. D. 



no 



CHAPTER II. 



Calvinism Teaches Infant Damnation. 

This is not to be affirmed of modern Calvinists. 
Without exception this doctrine is now denied by all 
'the followers of Calvin, whether in the Presbyterian, 
the Congregational, or the Baptist Churches. Hence 
were it not that the Confession of Faith — which does 
teach the doctrine — is still accepted as the true expo- 
nent of Calvinistic theology ; and especially were it 
not that this fact has been and is denied by Calvinistic 
theologians the reader would have been spared this 
chapter. The subject is important not only because it 
involves a correct understanding of history, but also 
because it enables the reader to judge more intelli- 
gently of the merits of the system under discussion. 

SECTION I. 

Does the Westminster Confession of Faith Teach Infant 
. Damnation f 

This issue was forced upon the Arminian. His 
statements of history are constantly denied by emi- 
nent Calvinists. Thus Dr. N. L. Rice, after having 
quoted the clause from the Confession which relates to 
this subject, says : " It is certain that Presbyterians 
have never understood this language as teaching the 
doctrine of infant damnation. Persons have often 
asserted that they had heard the doctrine preached, but 

in 



112 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

on particular inquiry it has been found that their 
statements were either maliciously false, or were infer- 
ences of their own from what the preacher said. But 
no respectable Presbyterian writer can be found, either 
in ancient or modern times, who has taught that any 

dying in infancy are lost The doctrine of 

Infant Damnation was charged upon -the Presbyterian 
Church by Alexander Campbell, in a public debate 
with the author of these pages. In reply we said : 
' I am truly gratified that the gentleman has brought 
forward the charge against us, of holding the doctrine 
of the damnation of infants ; because it is believed by 
many who are unacquainted with our views. ' He says, 
our Confession of Faith teaches this doctrine. This 
is not correct. It is true that it speaks of elect in- 
fants, — ' Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated 
and saved by Christ through the Spirit. ' Are all in- 
fants, dying in infancy, elect ? All Presbyterians who 
express an opinion on the subject, so believe. The 
expression, 'elect infants,' the gentleman seems to 
think, implies non-elect infants ; but I call upon him 
to produce one respectable Presbyterian author who has 
expressed the opinion that, 'infants dying in infancy 
are lost.' .... In answer to this demand, repeat- 
edly made, Mr. Campbell quoted one or two passages 
from the writings of Calvin and one from Turretine, 
in which those great and good men opposed the doc- 
trine of the Pelagians and Socinians, who hold that 
Adam's sin did not affect his posterity, and that men 
are not born in Original sin ; and in which they 
affirmed that all Adam's posterity are exposed to eter- 
nal death, and might justly have been left to perish. 
But neither of them taught that any infant is, in fact, 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 1 1 3 

lost. They simply taught that the salvation of all, 
infants as well as adults, is of grace, not of justice." 1 
Professor David Swing in his " Truths of To-Day," 
speaks of this and kindred doctrines as follows : ' ' All 
those formulas which looked toward a dark fatalism, 
or which destroyed the human will, or indicate the 
damnation of some infants, or that God, for his own 
glory, foreordained a vast majority of the race to 

everlasting death I have declared to them 

that the Presbyterian Church had left behind these 
doctrines, and that her religion was simply Evangeli- 
cal, and not par excellence the religion of despair." 
To this the editors of "The Presbyterian Quarterly " 
of 1874, replied, " The class of articles here caricatured 
and rejected, teach none of the things thus charged 
upon them, although it is common for adversaries thus 
to reproach them. Nor have these things been held 
more by the Presbyterian Church of the past than of 
the present." 2 To the same effect speaks Dr. Charles 
Hodge. Dr. Krauth in his work on ' ' The Conserva- 
tive Reformation and its Theology, ' ' made some state- 
ments concerning the Westminster Confession of Faith 
and infant salvation. Dr. Hodge replies, "We are 
sorry to see that Dr. Krauth labors to prove that the 
Westminster Confession teaches that only a certain 
part, or some of those who die in infancy are saved ; 
this he does by putting his own construction on the 
language of that Confession. We can only say that 
we never saw a Calvinistic theologian who held that 
doctrine. We are not learned enough to venture the 
assertion that no Calvinist ever held it; but if all 



1 "God Sovereign and Man Free," pp. 120, 121. 

2 p. 518. 



114 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

Calvinists are responsible for what every Calvinist has 
ever said, and all Lutherans for everything Luthei or 
Lutherans have ever said, then Dr. Krauth as well as 
ourselves will have a heavy burden to carry." 3 

That the meaning of Dr. Hodge may be more 
clearly understood, let me recall the readers' attention 
to one sentence — the only proof given against the 
conclusion of Dr. Krauth, viz., "We can only say 
that we never saw a Calvinistic theologian who held 
that doctrine." By this Dr. Hodge must mean one of 
two things, or both : viz., (i) That he never person- 
ally saw a Calvinistic theologian who held the doc- 
trine; or (2) That he never saw the doctrine in the 
writings of any Calvinistic theologian. But if he 
means to prove that the Confession of Faith does not 
teach infant condemnation because he never saw a 
theologian who held that doctrine, it amounts to noth- 
ing, for the simple reason it proves too much. By 
the same kind of argument I can prove that no one 
has ever held the Ptolemaic theory of astronomy. 
On this kind of reasoning numberless absurdities may 
be safely promulgated. 

On the other hand, if Dr. Hodge means he has 
never seen this doctrine in the writings of any Calvin- 
istic theologian, it proves nothing to the point. Be- 
fore the assertion can prove anything favorable to the 
Confession, Dr. Hodge must be able to say that he 
has very carefully read the writings of every Calvin- 
istic theologian before, and contemporary with the 
Westminister Assembly. This, however, is the very 
thing he has not done : hence the weakness of his 
position. He charges Dr. Krauth with "putting his 



3 " Systematic Theolog}-," Vol. III., p. 605 : note. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 115 

own construction on the language of the Confession." 
Is Dr. Hodge innocent of the same charge ? 

In this chapter I shall endeavor to find the true 
answer to the question, Does Calvinism, through the 
Westminister Confession of Faith, teach Infant Con- 
demnation ? 

SECTION 11. 
No Proof that Only Elect hifants Die. 

As we have seen, Dr. Rice and Dr. Hodge claim 
that infants who die are of the elect : hence, of course, 
there can be no infant condemnation. But where is 
the proof of this ? Let us see if it is in the Confession. 
" God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy 
counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably 
ordain whatsoever comes to pass ; yet so as thereby 
neither is God the author of sin ; nor is violence offered 
to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or con- 
tingency of second causes taken away, but rather 
established. Although God knows whatsoever may 
or can come to pass, upon all supposed condition ; 
yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw 
it as future, or as that which would come to pass, upon 
such conditions. By the decree of God, for the man- 
ifestation of his glory, some men and angels are 
predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore- 
ordained to everlasting death." 1 

From these declarations three legitimate deductions 
irresistibly follow : viz., (i) There are persons foreor- 
dained to eternal condemnation irrespective of their 
foreseen rejection of Christ. (2) All these per- 



1 Pages 25, 26, 27. 



Il6 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

sons have been infants : hence ( 3) There are non- 
elect infants. Now one of two things must be true. 
(a) None of the non-elect infants die, and so live 
beyond the age of infancy, and then die, and are ever- 
lastingly condemned: or (J>) Some non-elect infants 
die in infancy, and are eternally condemned. If none 
of the non-elect infants die in infancy, I ask for the 
proof. It is not in the Scriptures, nor does the Con- 
fession pretend to give any Scripture bearing on this 
point. The only passages given are I,uke xviii. 15, 16, 
and Acts ii. 38, 39. The former reads as follows : 
"And they brought unto him also infants, that he 
would touch them , but when his disciples saw it, they 
rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and 
said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and for- 
bid them not : for of such is the kingdom of God. ' ' 
Observe, it says "little children." It makes no dis- 
tinction : hence all little children are included. So 
far as the words and actions of the Saviour are con- 
cerned, they embrace the non-elect, as well as the 
elect infants Not a hint is given regarding the non- 
elect infants dying or not dying, and therefore, to 
interpret the Master's words as teaching that only 
elect infants die, is a clear begging of the question. 

The passage in Acts is, "Then Peter said unto 
them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the 
name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye 
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the 
promise is unto you and to your children, and to all 
that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God 
shall call." 

This has no reference to the question in dispute. 
It simply mentions the children of believers and those 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



117 



afar off. It says not a word even indirectly concern- 
ing the death of any person, much less elect or non- 
elect infants. Hence, if the Confession has no proof, 
either in itself or from Scripture, affirming that only 
elect infants die, then so far as the present question 
is concerned there is no proof and the assumption is 
wholly groundless. But the eternal condemnation of 
infants is so very repugnant to our moral nature that 
many Calvinists declare the Confession must be inter- 
preted in favor of all dying infants. This moral 
repugnance however, is soon seen to be narrow ; for 
is it any worse for God to condemn dying infants, 
than it is to condemn persons before they were born, 
and hence as innocent as the infants ? There is not a 
particle of difference. Both classes are condemned at 
the same time, even from all eternity. Therefore this 
intense moral repugnance, which but a moment ago 
was in favor of the Calvinist, now recoils with a strong 
force against this same Calvinist, and says The eternal 
condemnation of any one irrespective of a foreseen 
rejection of saving truth is a horrible libel on God's 
character. 

Moreover, what a curious position is necessitated 
by this assumption that only elect infants die ! If the 
death of an infant is the certain indication of election, 
then it is possible for man to secure the election of every 
infant now in existence. * Beyond all reasonable doubt 
there are infants now living, of whom it may be said, 
They are of the non-elect : Yet their destiny which has 
been decreed of God from all eternity can be reversed 
by a single act of man. To say this is not susceptible 
of demonstration is to affirm the exact condition of the 
Calvinistic postulate ' ' all dying infants are of the 



Il8 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

elect." Unquestionably among the abandoned classes 
of society are many dying infants, who, were they to 
live, would become dissolute and hardened characters. 

SECTION m. 

Infant Condemnation was Taught Prior to the West- 
minster Assembly. 

Augustine taught ' ' That infants dying without 
baptism, will on account of their imputed sin be in 
the mildest punishment. ' ' 2 

Friar Berthold says, " If your children die without 
baptism or are baptized improperly, they can never 
enter into the heavenly joys. They go, together with 
the Jewish and Gentile children who are still without 
belief, to the limbus to which those of old went. 
There they do not suffer any pain, except this that 
they do not go to heaven. ' ' 3 

Thomas Aquinas says, " Children who die without 
baptism have not that hope of eternal salvation which 
the fathers had prior to the manifestation of Christ. ' ' 4 
Zanchius affirms, " Infants are deservedly damned 
on account of the nature they have, to wit, a wicked 
nature, repugnant to the laws of God." 5 

We now come to John Calvin. Let us see how he 
and Dr. Rice agree. ' ' Moreover, infants who are to be 
saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain), 
must, without question, be previously regenerated by 
the Lord. " "I again ask how it is that the fall of 
Adam involves so many nations with their infant 

2 Prof. A. Park, D. D. " Bib. Sacra," 1851. 

3 Hagenbach's " Hist, of Doc." Vol. II., p. 131. 

4 Ibid. 

5 " Methodist Quarterly Review," 1873, p. 443. 



AND MAN'S MORAI, NATURE. 



II 9 



children in eternal death without remedy, unless that 
it so seemed meet to God ? " 6 

Peter Martyr says : ' ' Neither must it be thought that 
I would promise salvation unto all the children of the 

faithful which depart without the sacrament 

I dare not promise certain salvation, particularly unto 
any that departeth hence. For there be some children 
of the saints which belong not unto predestination." 7 

The Synod of Dort met on the 1 3th day of Novem- 
ber, 1 6 18, to oppose Arminianism. Its members were 
strongly Calvinistic, and as Calvin had taught infant 
condemnation, they would naturally do the same. H. 
Alting who was a member of the Synod replies to, and 
repels the charge, and here I quote : " Third, that we 
hold and teach the salvation of all infants indiscrim- 
inately, who die without baptism. No truly orthodox 
theologian has ever said or written this. Neither 
Zwingle nor Calvin, nor any other of like note has so 
taught. ' ' 8 Mr. Alting was a learned divine and as 
far as we know an honest man. From him we learn 
what was the orthodox opinion on this subject and 
hence if the Synod of Dort did not teach infant con- 
demnation, so far forth it was heterodox. But the 
charge of heresy has never been raised against this 
Synod, and therefore it is more than probable that it 
taught infant condemnation. The Synod officially 
declared, " Of the infants of believers only, who die 
of an age before they can be indoctrinated, we deter- 
mine that they are saved. ' ' 9 

6 "Institutes." B. IV., Ch. XVI., Sec. 17, and Ch. XXIII., Sec. 7. 
V "Methodist Quarterly Review," July, 1873, p. 444. 

8 "Theologia Elenchtica," p. 377. As quoted in " Methodist Quarterly 
Review," 1873, P- 444- 

9 "Acta Dordrechtana," p. 58. As quoted in " Methodist Quarterly 
Review," 1873, p. 442. 



120 CAI^VINIvSM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 
SKCTION IV. 

Infant Condenuiation Taught by the Westminster 
Assembly. 

To a large degree the Assembly was composed of 
pronounced Calvinists. It met in 1643, only twent}^- 
five years after the Synod of Dort. Its doctrines were 
similar to those of Dort. Dr. Shedd says : ' ■ The 
system of Doctrine constructed by this Assembly is 
thoroughly Calvinistic, and bears a close resemblance 
to the canons of the Synod of Dort. ' ' 1 But there is a 
vast difference between a belief in the condemnation 
of some infants and a belief in the salvation of all 
infants. Hence it is highly probable that the As- 
sembly believed in infant condemnation unless it 
emphatically stated the contrary. There is no such 
statement on record. If the Assembly believed in 
infant condemnation it is highly probable that it tes- 
tified concerning that belief ; for (1) They were honest 
men. (2) They possessed strong convictions. (3) The 
occasion was important. ( 4) Every member was obliged 

to take the following oath: "I , do seriously 

promise and vow in the presence of Almighty God, 
that in this Assembly, whereof I am a member, I will 
maintain nothing in point of doctrine but what I be- 
lieve to be the most agreeable to the Word of God ; 
nor in point of discipline, but what I shall conceive to 
conduce most to the glory of God and the good and 
peace of his church. ' ' 2 

The only record we have from this representative 
body of divines on the subject under discussion is, 



1 "History of Doctrine." Vol. II., p. 480. 

2 Hetheringion. " History of West. Assembly," p. 101. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



121 



" Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and 
saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, 
and where, and how he pleaseth." 3 It is very prob- 
able that this was meant to teach infant condemnation ; 
for (i ) The doctrine was held by Dr. Twisse, the first 
Prolocutor of the Assembly. He taught'that " Many 
thousands, even all the infants of Turks and Saracens 
d} r ing in original sin, are tormented by him in hell- 
fire " 4 

(2) If the declaration of the Confession was not 
intended to teach infant condemnation it must have 
been so understood, not only by those attending, but 
also by all who were contemporary with the Assembly. 
If it had been interpreted as teaching the salvation of 
all dying infants it would have been condemned by 
many Calvinists such as Dr. Twisse and highly ap- 
plauded by many Arminians. But so far as history 
records the events of this period such a condemnation, 
or approbation was never in existence. (3) If the 
passage in question does not teach infant condemna- 
tion those who composed it were either dishonest or 
very ignorant. Beyond all controversy the Assembly 
made and left the impression that the doctrine of in- 
fant condemnation was the teaching of Scripture. As 
we have seen the members were honest. Hence their 
words are extremely ambiguous, or else they intended 
to teach the doctrine. But they were too intelligent 
to be guilty of such ambiguity, for, as Baxter says, 
" The divines there congregated were men of eminent 
learning and goodness, and ministerial ability and 



3 Confession," p. 68. 

4 " Vindieire Grat. Protest, et Prov. Dei.' 
Review," 1873, p. 443. 



Methodist Quarterly 



122 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

fidelity ; and, as far as I am able to judge, the Christian 
world since the days of the Apostles had never seen a 
synod of more excellent men than this Synod and the 
Synod of Dort." 5 

" Hallam admits that they were equal in learning, 
good sense, and other merits to an}* Lower House of 
Convocation that ever made figure in England." r ' 
Then if the members of the Assembly were not dis- 
honest nor ignorant, they meant to and did declare 
that which they actually believed. Hence the passage 
in question is a part of the Calvinistic theology of the 
Seventeenth Century, and as thus related unequivo- 
cally teaches infant condemnation. 

SECTION V. 

The Doctrine More or Less Distinctly Taught Since the 
Westminster Assembly. 

The few extracts which I have selected for this sec- 
tion will appropriately form the conclusion to the sub- 
ject and also enable the reader to see how accurately 
our Calvinistic theologians have interpreted history. 
The following is from the celebrated poet and theolo- 
gian Dr. Isaac Watts : "But whereas Dr. Ridgley 
supposes the immortal existence of such infant souls in 
a sort of stupid ignorance or insensibility, w*hich the 
Scripture nowhere intimates, I think it is much more 
natural and reasonable to suppose that God will de- 
prive both body and soul of life which Adam had for- 
feited for himself and for them according to the first 
threatening of death. And since the book of Script- 



5 " Methodist Quarterly Review," 1848, p. 585. 

6 " Presbyterian Review," 1874, p. 732. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



123 



ure has not revealed it, I can not find it in the book of 
reason ; nor can I conceive what end it can attain in 
divine providence, to continue so many millions of in- 
fant souls in an eternal state of stupor. Is it agree- 
able to the conduct of infinite wisdom, and the govern- 
ment of God, to maintain such an innumerable 
multitude of idiots equal in number to almost all the 
rest of the human race, in a long, endless duration, and 
to reign over such an immense nation of senseless and 
thoughtless immortals? .... Upon the whole, 
therefore, the state of non-existence to which we here 
suppose them to be reduced after death, is much more 
probable, being the least demerit of imputed sin, or 
an everlasting forfeiture of life, and a sort of endless 
punishment without pain." The difference between 
children of pious and non-pious parents is clearly 
drawn in the following: "I add in the last place, 
that if all children dying in infancy, are certainly 
saved, what are the special privileges which are so 
often asserted in Scripture to belong to the children of 
pious parents and the seed of Abraham,, in having 
God to be their God?" 8 

Dr. Nathanael Emmons says of God, " He has not 
been pleased to inform us expressly whether he does 
renew the hearts of a whole, or a part, or none of 
those little children who die soon after they become 
moral agents. As they then become morally depraved, 
it is plain, that in point of justice, he may then leave 
them all to perish in their native depravity and guilt. 
Or in mercy he may renew them all. But from all 
the light we can find in Scripture on this subject, it 
seems to be the most probable opinion that he renews 



8 "Works." Vol. III., pp. 497, 502. 



124 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



only some of those who die soon after they become 
morally depraved and guilty." Before these remarks 
can be thoroughly understood we must know at what 
age Dr. Emmons predicated moral agency. Concern- 
ing this, the editor of Dr. Kmmon's works, Dr. Ide, 
say, "His own belief is as clearly expressed in the 
body of the discourse that they become moral agents 
as soon as they become natural agents. ' ' 9 

Dr. K. D. Griffin is not quite so positive. ' ' Jus- 
tice therefore approved of the actual destruction of a 
whole race that were to be born infants. They meet 
a condemnation at the threshold of their existence. 
Their just doom in the cradle is, that first or last they 
shall sink to perdition. And this doom would have 

been just had no Saviour been provided A 

large part of the race die in infancy and go to heaven 
or hell. If to the latter, (which for certain reasons I 
hope is not the case, ) then they justly perish ; if to 
the former, then they are saved by grace and by 
Christ, and therefore might justly have been con- 
signed to death." 1 

In an article written some years since for ■ ' The 
Interior," Professor W. M. Blackburn, D. D., frankly 
admits the validity of my position, he says, ' ' By the 
words 'covenant' and 'elect' the Westminster Assembly 
meant to run a line through the adult world. While 
thus applying those terms to adults, they debate about 
the ' elect of infants, ' and the same line was evidently 
run through the class of dying infants. The ' elect 
infants ' are those within the covenant of redemption." 2 

r -> "Works." Vol. II., pp. 626, 625. 

1 "Divine Efficiency," pp. 69, 70. 

2 See also the testimony of Dr. G. I,. Prentiss. " Presbyterian Review," 
July, 1883. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



In concluding this subject I doubt not the candid 
reader will readily see whose construction I have 
placed upon the Confession of Faith. It is neither 
Dr. Krauth's, Dr. Hodge's nor mine. It is the con- 
struction of the members of the Westminster Assem- 
bly, and as such, is entitled to our implicit confidence. 

That the issue should have terminated so over- 
whelmingly against these honored divines is no fault 
of mine. I have simply quoted facts which for some 
unaccountable reason the}' thought best to deny. 
Since the above was written I have examined the re- 
cent work by Dr. Charles Briggs. He says, 1 1 We are 
able to say that the Westminster divines were unani- 
mous on this question of the salvation of elect infants 
only. We have examined the greater part of the 
writings of the Westminster divines, and have not 
been able to find any different opinion from the ex- 
tracts given. The Presbyterian churches have de- 
parted from their standards on this question and it is 
simple honesty to acknowledge it. We are at liberty 
to amend the Confession, but we have no right to dis- 
tort it and to pervert its grammatical and historical 
meaning. ' ' ? ' 



3 "Whither ?" p. 135 



CHAPTER III. 

Calvinism Contradicts the: Bible by Declaring 
Saving Faith to be a Direct Gift of God. 

" In order that Christ may do anything for a man, 
he everywhere prescribes an absolutely necessary con- 
dition. This condition is faith. Christ always says : 
' If you would be saved by me, you must believe me. ' 
.... So always between all that Christ can do and 
longs to do for men and the men themselves rises this 

inevitable and rocky condition, faith Christ 

respects a man's free volition. Faith is that move- 
ment of the soul through which it passes into surrender 
to him and seizure of him. Faith is the appropriating 
faculty. Without faith, nothing in religion is pos- 
sible ; with faith, everything is possible, because by 
faith the soul allows the incoming and the energy of 
the saving Christ. " 

— Rev. Way land Hoy t, D. D. 



120 



CHAPTER HI- 

Calvinism Contradicts the; BibeE by Declaring 
Saving Faith to be; a Direct Gift oe God. 

Having considered the Atonement as the founda- 
tion of God's universal offer of mercy, it is now in 
order to turn our attention to that which secures to 
the individual, the blessings of Christ's death, namely, 
Saving Faith. 

SECTION I. 

Calvinism Declares that Faith is Not a Condition of 
Salvation. 

This affirmation is emphatically denied by some 
Calvinists among whom is the Rev. Robert Aikman, 
D. D. In his article " The Position of Calvinism," he 
says : ' ' Now the decrees of salvation are uncondi- 
tional as being the self-originated, independent pur- 
poses of the divine mind, but the salvation which is 
decreed is a salvation whose conditions are faith, 

repentance and love There are none w 7 ho 

endeavor more fully to proclaim the conditions of 
salvation than we do." 1 

The whole subject depends on the question, What 
is meant by the term ' ' conditions ' ' ? Evidently by 
it Dr. Aikman means one thing, while Arminians 
mean something totally different. Dr. Aikman prob- 



1 "Methodist Quarterly Review," 1873, p. 317. 

127 



128 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

ably means that as long as faith, repentance and love 
are not exercised by the individual, salvation is not be- 
stowed. True, this rna)^ be a condition in a certain 
restricted sense : but as thus understood, the source 
of the given condition is never sought. Or in other 
words, according to Calvinism God's election to sal- 
vation is orderly ; the elect are not separated from the 
non-elect until God gives them repentance, faith and 
love. These graces are the outward conditions or 
occasions of the secret, irresistible love of God. He 
makes the universal promise to save all who will 
believe, and in the elect he fulfills the condition by 
giving them repentance, faith and love ; as a conse- 
quence they are known as among the redeemed. 
This is a distinction without a valid difference, for if 
the divine, irresistible grace makes good the condi- 
tions, the individual has not performed them, and 
hence, salvation is really unconditional. That this is 
all the conditional^ of salvation allowed by Calvin- 
ism, I shall now attempt to prove. 

In chapter second of Part First I discussed at 
length the question " Are God's Decrees Conditional 
or Unconditional " ? I there made it clear that every 
Calvinistic writer from Augustine to Dr. Charles 
Hodge had taught that the decrees were unconditional. 
Inasmuch therefore as salvation is an essential part of 
the decrees, and especially as Dr. Dabney has informed 
us that the decrees are one, the conclusion is irresist- 
ible that salvation is unconditional. But it may be 
profitable to notice what a few of these writers say 
concerning faith, repentence and love as conditions of 
salvation. John Sladen taught "Faith and repent- 
ance are not the conditions of God's decreeing salva- 



AND MAN'S MORAI, NATURE. 



129 



tion to any, but the qualifications of the persons whom 
God has absolutely decreed to save." Andrew Fuller 
says : 1 * The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination 
supposes that holiness of heart and life are as much 
the object of divine appointment as future happiness, 
and that the connection can never be broken." The 
following from Dr. Griffin clearly shows that I have 
correctly defined what Calvinists mean by " condi- 
tion." ''Faith (the condition of salvation) and 
holiness generally, instead of being independent acts 
of the creature under the persuasions of the Spirit, are 
the gift of God." The following is from Dr. John 
Dick and admirably sets forth both views. 1 ' 1 remark 
once more that the decrees of God are absolute and 

unconditional Here we have many opponents, 

Lutherans, Arminians, Jesuits When he de- 
creed to save those who should believe, he decreed to 
give them faith That any decree is condi- 
tional in the sense of our opponents, that it depends 
upon the will of man, of which he is sovereign, so that 
he may will or not will as he pleases, we deny." Dr. 
George Duffield declares " New School Presbyterians 
do not affirm that faith foreseen is the condition with 
God for his decree of election." Dr. Venema says, 
' ' The act of the decree is absolute ; not uncertain or 
doubtful. It is not suspended on any condition on 
the part of man." Moreover, this is precisely what 
Dr. Aikman believes and has said; for on page 313 
of his article from which I have quoted, he gives the 
view of Dr. N. W. Taylor, "The orthodox doctrine is 
not that God has purposed to save a part of mankind 
on condition of foreseen repentence and faith," heartily 
indorsing it by saying, ' ' If this is ' modified Armin- 



130 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

ianism ' some of us would be happy to have it pervade 
all the pulpits of the Methodist Episcopal Church." 

Against this view the Arminian strongly protests. 
He affirms that God has made provision for the salva- 
tion of all ; has promised to save all who will repent 
of their sins and exercise faith in his only begotten 
Son : that this condition must be fulfilled by each 
individual under the influences of the Holy Spirit. 
This being man's duty, God can not save unless it has 
been performed ; hence so far forth as man will not 
believe, will not exercise faith in the Saviour, to that 
same degree is the desire of God thwarted. Were all 
men to meet the required condition, the ideal plan of 
God would become the actual. Having thus briefly 
outlined the contents of this chapter, I shall attempt 
to show that this is the teaching of Scripture. 

SKCTION 11. 

The Importance of Faith. 

On this subject the words of Dr. Charles Hodge are 
admirable: he says, "As so much prominence is 
assigned to faith in the Scriptures, as all the promises 
of God are addressed to believers, and as all the con- 
scious exercises of spiritual life involve the exercise of 
faith, without which they are impossible, the import- 
ance of this grace can not be overestimated. To the 
theologian and to the practical Christian it is indis- 
pensable that clear and correct views should be enter- 
tained on the subject." 2 As a race of responsible 
creatures, man is hopelessly lost in sin without divine 
intervention. Having an infinite love for all his chil- 

2 "Theology." Vol. III., p. 41. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURK. 131 

dren, God sincerely desires their reclamation. But 
how shall this be accomplished ? To man the problem 
is indeed insolvable. He sees at a glance that force is 
not adequate ; that spirit can not be governed by the 
laws and regulations of matter ; that a moral or spirit- 
ual power is absolutely needed which shall at once free 
the soul from the dominion of sin and re-inspire the 
heart with new hope. Beyond this his mind can not 
go, and in the agony of despair, the sinful soul fre- 
quently cries out, " O wretched man that I am, who 
shall deliver me from the body of. this death ? ' ' But 
God, whose ways are past finding out, is wiser than 
man. In the divine counsels two principles were to be 
employed which should secure that for which the sages 
and philanthropists had vainly striven ; viz., (1) The 
Incarnation of Absolute Truth. God is truth, and 
hence, the human mind — originally created in, and 
even now bearing to some degree the divine image — 
was made for truth. Falsehood is the enemy of the 
race no less than of God. The normal action of the 
intellect, heart and conscience is to seek for, and repose 
in truth. 

"The mind was formed to mount sublime 
Beyond the narrow bounds of time — 
To everlasting things. ' ' 

This, however, it can not do if it is not m sympa- 
thy with truth. Nor is it too much to say that its 
flight upward will be seriously hindered if it lives in 
the midst of insincerity. 

It is much easier to tell men how to live truly than 
to demonstrate the principles in daily life. Plato, 
Socrates and Confucius fairly succeeded in the former, 
but most ignominiously failed in the latter : hence it 



132 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

lias ever been the world's great need that absolute 
truth should be embodied in a living representative. 
This we find in Jesus Christ of whom the Baptist said, 
" He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God; 
for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him." 
Speaking of himself the Master declared unto Pilate, 
" Thou sayest I am a King. To this end was I born, 
and for this cause came I into the world, that I should 
bear witness unto the truth." Thus it was the life- 
work of Jesus Christ to teach men ' 1 the way, the 
truth, and the life ' ' by exhibiting these heavenly 
graces not only in matchless words, but also by that 
which is infinitely better — a matchless life. 

I know there are men like Theodore Parker who 
question, and at times, deny Christ's faultless charac- 
ter. But the challenge which the Master threw to the 
unbelieving Jews, ' ' Which of you convicteth me of 
sin? ' ' has yet to be accepted and overthrown. Had Pilate 
been more spiritually minded, had he been true to his 
convictions, he would not have stopped with the 
words (< I find in him no fault," but would have fallen 
at his feet, exclaiming Thou art the One in whom the 
dreams of the ages have their realization. 

(2) The second principle which God employed 
was the incarnation of Infinite I/we. To be intrinsi- 
cally true, and to live in accordance with the dictates 
of truth, constitutes a grand, a noble lite ; 3^et it is 
conceivable that the person thus living so far above 
his fellows, might have little or no interest in their 
trials, temptations and failures. That gradually there 
would grow a wide, and almost impassable chasm 
between them, resulting in a cold, dignified rectitude 
in the good, and a mistrust and discouragement in the 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



133 



bad. Consequently, the small influence possessed by 
negatively good men. The pattern itself may be true, 
but lacking the heart element there is no inspiration 
for those living in the valley of despair. The moon 
may be very beautiful, but it requires the warm, genial 
sun to draw the tiny particles of water from their 
silvery bed in the lake, up to the dizzy heights of the 
clouds whence they return to freshen and beautify the 
earth. This is the order of grace no less than of 
nature. Christ's trueness must not, nay can not be 
separated from his love for his fellows, and because 
the two are indissolubly united, men have always 
gone to him for comfort and refuge. His model life 
demonstrates the existence of personal virtue. His 
marvelous condescending and persevering love for 
those whose hearts are empty and hungry gives birth 
to a new and all-controlling affection, which prompts 
fresh hope and strong resolution 

But this truth is not seen in all its fullness until we 
concentrate our gaze on the cross of Calvary. Here 
we have the crowning testimony of the Master's love, 
a love so real, so intense, so boundless as to lead him 
to pray for the forgiveness of his enemies. Here, 
however, we must not tarry ; for the three prophetic 
days have expired, and lo, from the cold arms of 
Death, from the closely guarded sepulchre comes the 
crucified Saviour. With the power of God at his com- 
mand what shall he do ? Send the pestilence or the 
earthquake among his enemies ? Strike them dead by 
a flash from heaven ? Nay, he commands his disciples 
— and as we read do we not wonder at the marvelous 
self-control of Jesus ? ' ' Go ye, therefore, and teach 
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, 



134 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching 
them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
manded yon : and lo, I am with } t ou alway, even unto 
the end of the world. ' ' 
Well has Xavier sung 

" Thou, O my Jesus, thou didst me 
Upon the cross embrace ; 
For me didst bear the nails and spear 
And manifold disgrace. 

And griefs and torments numberless, 

And sweat of agony, 
Yea, death itself ; and all for one 

That was thine enemy. 

Then why, O blessed Jesus Christ 

Should I not love thee well ? 
Not for the hope of winning heaven, 

Nor of escaping hell — 

Not with the hope of gaining aught, 

Not seeking a reward — 
But as thyself hath loved me 

O ever loving Lord ! 
Ev'n so I love thee and will love, 

And in thy praise will sing, 
Solely because thou art my God 

And my eternal King." 

The life and death of Jesus Christ not only per- 
fectly satisfy the divine veracity and justice, but they 
also constitute the mightiest moral power which the 
wisdom of God could devise. In the light of eighteen 
Christian centuries we clearly see : ( i ) That if God 
is to save the race from the bondage and penalty of 
sin the conditions or terms of mercy must not cast re- 
proach on his government. (2 ) The remedy must be 
within the reach of all. (3) It must go to the root of 



AND MAN'S MORAX NATURE. 



135 



the disease, and thus work a thorough cure, and (4) 
While it shall certainly exclude all spirit of boasting 
from the redeemed, the remedy must be of such in- 
trinsic worth as to commend it to the judgment and 
conscience which, if accepted, becomes so far forth a 
meritorious act. Now I confidently assert that in all 
this universe there is, and there can be nothing better 
calculated to secure the divine ideal than that which 
God has actually devised ; viz. , Faith — which worketh 
by Love — in the Lord Jesus Christ. Possibly the reader 
may say that I am safe in this assertion because be- 
lieving in God's infinite wisdom, that which he "has 
done is predicated' as the wisest. But I assure him, it 
is in no such spirit of petitio principii that I am 
speaking. Let him examine the subject for himself. 
Study it in all its relations both to God and man. 
Discard all thought of what the Divine Mind has 
done. Let him place himself in imagination at the 
beginning of human history with a fallen race to save ; 
with the honor of God to sustain, and then let him 
tell me, if he can, what mightier moral power could 
have been devised than that which has been employed. 
For one, I confess that the more I investigate the phi- 
losophy of salvation, the more deeply am I impressed 
with the Divine Wisdom, saying with Paul, "Othe 
depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge 
of God ! How unsearchable are his judgments, and 
his ways past finding out." 

The importance of Faith, Scripturally considered, 
is seen in that {a) Without it God can not be pleased. 
' ' But without faith it is impossible to please him ; for 
he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and 
that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek 



I36 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

him" (Heb. xi. 6). (b) Through Faith the soul 
secures the remission of sin. "To him give all the 
prophets witness, that through his name whosoever 
believeth in him shall receive the remission of sins' ' 
(Acts. x. 43). (c) The believer is justified by faith. 
" Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us 
to Christ, that we might be justified by faith" (Gal. 
iii. 24). (d) At the same time God is seen to be 
just. "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitia- 
tion through faith in his blood, to declare his right- 
eousness for the remission of sins that are past, 
through the forbearance of God. To declare, I say, 
at this time, his righteousness, that he might be 
just, and the justifier of him which believeth in 
Jesus" (Rom. iii. 25, 26). (<?) Faith leads to ac- 
tivity. " Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, 
being alone" (Jas. ii. 17). 

SECTION III. 

77/ e Natiux of Faith. 

Faith is of two kinds, viz., Objective and Subject- 
ive. The former refers to Jesus Christ and his gospel. 
He is the object in whom, and his doctrines are the 
truths in which the individual or subjective faith rests. 
Hence Paul says, "But before faith came we were 
kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which 
should afterward be revealed. Wherefore the law was 
our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we 
might be justified by faith. But after that faith is 
come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster ' ' ( Gal. 
iii. 23-26). Here the Apostle speaks of a present 
faith, which at one time was not • but inasmuch as 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



137 



there was a real and accepted spirit of faith under the 
Old Dispensation, I understand these words as referring 
to objective faith. Certainly this idea is clearly taught 
in Jude, verse 3: "Beloved, when I gave all dili- 
gence to write unto you of the common salvation, it 
was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you 
that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which 
was once delivered unto the saints." 

Subjective faith is that belief or trust which is ex- 
ercised in the objective faith, or in the Saviour. It is 
usually called faith, saving, or justifying faith. Now 
lei us turn our attention to some definitions of faith, 
and as we do this, be kind enough to remember the re" 
mark of Rev. Joseph Cook, that in all misunderstand- 
ings it is wise to go back to definitions. 

As I understand it, subjective faith consists of 
three things, viz., (1) A clear perception of the truth, 
or the person in whom the subjective faith is to rest. 
(2) A deep interest in the truth or person. (3) A 
real commitment of self to this truth or person. 

SECTION IV. 

The Language of Scripture Presupposes and Asserts 
that Faith which ivorketh by Love is a Radical 
Condition of Salvation. 

Against the Calvinistic doctrine of Monergism the 
Scriptures clearly teach the doctrine of Synergism. 
Because (1 ) We are commanded to love, and to exer- 
cise faith in God. "Hear, O Israel, The Lord our 
God is one Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord thy 
God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and 
with all thy might" (Deut. vi. 4, 5). "Trust in 



138 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

the Lord, and do good : so shalt thou dwell in the 
land, and verily thou shalt be fed" (Ps. xxxvii. 3). 
" Trust in the Lord with all thine heart ; and lean not 
unto thine own understanding" (Prov. iii. 5}. 
" Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obey- 
eth the voice of his servant, that waiketh in darkness, 
and hath no light?* let him trust in the name of the 
Lord, and stay upon his God" (Isa. 1. 10). "And 
Jesus, answering, saith unto them, have faith in God " 
''Mark xi. 22 ). To the same spiritual purpose are the 
gospel injunctions concerning faith in Christ. 11 Then 
said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might 
work the works of God ? Jesus answered and said 
unto them, This is the work of God that ye believe on 
him whom he hath sent " (John vi. 28, 29). " And 
this is his commandment, That we should believe on 
the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, 
as he gave us commandment " ( 1. John iii. 23). 

(2) Salvation is conditioned on the Exercise of 
Faith. ''For God so loved the world, that he gave 
his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in 
him should not perish, but have everlasting life " 
(John iii. 16). ''Verily, verily, I say unto you, He 
that believeth on me hath everlasting life ' ' (John 
vi. 47). ''And they said, Believe 0:1 the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house " 
(Acts xvi. 31 ). " For the Scripture saith, Whosoever 
believeth on him shall not be ashamed " (Rom. x. 1 ij. 
(3) Faith is so much a personal choice that it is said 
to belong; to the individual bv whom it is exercised. 
" But Jesus turned him about ; and when he saw her. 
he said, Daughter, be of good comfort ; thy faith hath 
made thee whole " (Matt. ix. 22). " And Jesus said 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



139 



unto him, Go thy way ; thy faith hath made thee 
whole. And immediately he received his sight, and 
followed Jesus in the way " (Mark x. 52). To the 
woman who was a sinner, and yet who "loved much," 
the Master said, " Thy faith hath saved thee ; go in 
peace " (Luke vii. 50). Of the ten lepers who were 
healed, only one returned to the Saviour to give thanks, 
to whom he said, ' ' Arise, go thy way ; thy faith hath 
made thee whole " (xvii. 19). " For what saith the 
Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was 
counted unto him for righteousness " (Rom. iv. 3). 
What was counted unto Abraham for righteousness ? 
Faith. Whose faith ? His own. 

In this connection the reader may profitably notice 
the eleventh chapter of Hebrews which is devoted to 
the triumphs of faith. While it is true that the writer 
had no intention of unduly magnifying the individual 
so as to allow any room for boasting, yet beyond all 
controversy, each person's faith is designated as his 
own ; moreover because faith is a moral quality — a 
right attitude of the soul — those who are here enum- 
erated are deservedly praised. Such is our moral 
nature, that when we do right a sense of approval — of 
complacency spontaneously arises. So far forth this 
intrinsically belongs to the person whose conscience 
says, You have done right. Hence "By faith Abel 
offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, 
by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, 
God testifying of his gifts ; and by it he being dead 
yet speaketh" (v. 5). Gregory the Great, cited by 
Delitzsch, says, " All that is given to God, is weighed 
according to the disposition of its giver : whence it is 
written, ' God had regard to Abel, and to his giP,s, 



140 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

but had no regard to Cain and his gifts.' The Script- 
ure does not say, ' He regarded the gifts of Abel, and 
did not regard the gifts of Cain,' but first says, that 
'He regarded Abel,' and then adds, 'and his gifts.' 
So we see that it was not the gifts which made Abel 
to be acceptable, but Abel who made the gifts to be 
so." 

(4) God's work is advanced or hindered in the 
exact proportion as Faith is or is not exercised. Jesus 
marvelled at the faith of the centurion, and said, "Go 
thy way ; and as thou hast believed, so be it done 
unto thee" (Matt. viii. 13). To the two blind men 
the Master puts the searching question ' ' Believe ye 
that I am able to do this ? ' ' Receiving an affirmative 
answer, he said, ' ' According to your faith be it unto 
you" (Matt. ix. 29). To Jairus, Christ said, "Be 
not afraid, only believe" (Mark v. 36). To the 
father who had a son with a dumb spirit, and who was 
bordering on unbelief, Jesus said, " If thou canst be- 
lieve, all things are possible to him that believeth" 
(Markix. 23). True, these passages refer to physi- 
cal healing ; but if a moral state or attitude of the 
mind is required to heal a physical malady, shall any- 
thing less be required for the disease of the soul ? 
Moreover, let us not forget that in all the gracious 
works of Jesus he sought to impress the mind that he 
who could heal the body, could, and if he were allowed, 
would heal the soul. To the disciples all things were 
conditioned on the exercise of faith. "Therefore I 
say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye 
pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have 
them" (Mark xi. 24). (5) Unbelief, the great sin, 
and that which absolutely deters God from saving. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 141 

This is susceptible of several presentations; viz., (a) 
The disciples are mildly rebuked for not having faith. 
Peter's unbelief while walking on the water is re- 
proved by the Master, saying, " O thou of little faith, 
wherefore didst thou doubt?" (Matt. xiv. 31). The 
father of the lunatic son must have been surprised at 
the failure of the disciples to cast out the evil spirit. 
When Jesus heard of it he said, " O faithless and per- 
verse generation, how long shall I be with 3'ou ? how 
long shall I suffer you ? " " Then came the disciples 
to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him 
out? And Jesus said unto them, Because of your 
unbelief; for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith 
as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this 
mountain, Remove hence to yonder place ; and it 
shall remove : and nothing shall be impossible unto 
you" (Matt. xvii. 17, 19, 20). The foolish fears ol 
the disciples while in the storm on the Sea of Galilee, 
are kindly rebuked by the Master, who ( ' said unto 
them, Why are ye so fearful ? how is it that ye have 
no faith" (Mark iv. 40)? While Jesus is teaching 
the nature of human forgiveness, the apostles ex- 
claimed, "Lord increase our faith." Doubtless this 
was a very sincere and laudable desire : but so far 
from the Master granting it in any positive sense — he 
proceeds to show them that it is their duty to have 
faith (Luke xviii. 3-10 ). Thomas was called 
"faithless" because he would not believe without 
seeing and feeling the nail-prints: nor was he as 
blessed as they who had not seen, and yet had be- 
lieved. (John xx. 25, 27, 29.) (b) We are warned 
against unbelief. "Take heed, brethren, lest there 
be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in depart- 



I42 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

ing from the living God." "Let us therefore fear, 
lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, 
any of you should seem to come short of it." " Let 
us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man 
fall after the same example of unbelief" (Heb. iii. 
12; iv. 1, 11). (c) God's Ancient People lost through 
unbelief. "Thou wilt say then, The branches were 
broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well ; because 
of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest 
by faith. Be not highminded, but fear : For if God 
spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also 
spare not thee" (Rom. xi. 19-21). ' ' But with whom 
was he grieved forty years ? was it not with them 
that had sinned, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness ? 
And to whom sware he that they should not enter into 
his rest, but to them that believed not ? So we see 
that they could not enter in because of unbelief" 
(Heb. iii. 17-19). "For unto us was the gospel 
preached, as well as unto them ; but the word preached 
did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in 
them that heard it. " " Seeing therefore it remaineth 
that some must enter therein, and they to whom it 
was first preached entered not in because of unbelief ' ' 
(iv. 2, 6). "Therefore we ought to give the more 
earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest 
at any time we should let them slip. For if the word 
spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgres- 
sion and disobedience received a just recompense of 
reward ; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great 
salvation ; which at the first began to be spoken by 
the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that 
heard him" (ii. 1-3). (d) The same condemnation 
rested on the Jews in the time of Christ. ' ' He that 



AND MAN'S MORAIy NATURE. 1 43 

believeth on him is not condemned : but he that be- 
lieve th not is condemned already, because he hath not 
believed in the name of the only begotten Son of 
God" (John iii. 18). "I said therefore unto you, 
that ye shall die in your sins : for if ye believe not 
that I am he, ye shall die in your sins " (viii. 24). 
Speaking of the Holy Spirit the Master said, "And 
when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and 
of righteousness, and of judgment." Why of sin? 
" Because they believe not on me " (xvi. 8, 9). The 
dying Stephen justly said, " Ye stiffnecked and uncir- 
cumcised in heart and ears, ye do alwa}'S resist the 
Holy Ghost : as your fathers did, so do ye" (Acts 
vii. 51). (e) The Saviour was deterred by unbelief. 
"And he could there do no mighty work, save that 
he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed 
them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief" 
(Mark vi. 5, 6). The only escape possible to the Cal- 
vinist is to assert that when men do not believe, God 
never intended they should. But as we have seen in 
a previous chapter this is not tenable ; not only be- 
cause the language of the Bible unequivocally con- 
demns it, but also because it irresistibly leads to the 
charge of insincerity on the part of God. Salvation 
is conditional. Faith in the divine promises is the 
condition which man must fulfill before God can save. 

SECTION v. 

How is Faith Obtained ? How Does it Come f 
The Bible answers this question by asserting that 
faith comes by hearing, reading, and meditating upon 
the Word. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and 
hearing by the word of God ' ' ( Rom. x. 1 7 ) . " Search 



144 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

the scriptures ; for in them ye think }^e have eternal 
life : and they are they which testify of me" (John 
v. 39). " And many other signs truly did Jesus in 
the presence of his disciples, which are not written 
in this book. But these are written that }^e might 
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and 
that believing ye might have life through his name " 
(xx. 30, 31). It comes by witnessing miraculous 
events. Concerning the death of Lazarus, the Master 
said to the disciples, ' ' And I am glad for 3'our sakes 
that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe ; 
nevertheless let us go unto him" (xi. 15). Thomas 
was doubting until he saw the prints of the nails : 
hence, seeing was believing : therefore Jesus said unto 
him, " Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast 
believed : blessed are the} T that have not seen, and yet 
have believed " (John xx. 29). It may be safety as- 
serted that all the might} 7 works of Jesus were intended 
to substantiate his claims of Messiahship : or, to give 
such evidence of the truthfulness of his claims that 
men should have no excuse for not believing, or exer- 
cising faith. Hence, when speaking to Philip, he 
says, 1 ' Believe me that I am in the Father, and the 
Father in me : or else believe me for the very works' 
sake" (xiv. 11). Again, speaking of the unbeliev- 
ing Jews, he says to the disciples, " If I had not done 
among them the works which none other man did, 
they had not had sin : but now have they both seen 
and hated both me and my Father" (xv. 24). "If 
I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the 
works : that ye may know and believe that the Father 
is in me, and I in him " (x. 37, 38). 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 145 

It follows from the above that a person's faith may- 
be increased, or made stronger, by greater light, a 
clearer understanding of the Word ; or by a more 
vivid appreciation of the goodness and power of God 
as seen in Jesus Christ. In this sense the disciples 
were right — though they ought to have had more faith 
— when they said to the L,ord, " Increase our faith." 
As we have seen he did increase their faith at the res- 
urrection of Lazarus. Indeed, to them, every day's 
experience was a new revelation of his infinite love 
and power, and hence, a continual confirmation of 
their faith. Yet, so far from being directly given by 
God, it depended upon them, whether they w T ould or 
would not improve their opportunities. Thus, subjec- 
tive, or saving faith is man's part in the saving of the 
soul : Not without God's aid, however ; for were it 
not for the Holy Spirit convicting men of, and draw- 
ing them away from their sins to the cross of Calvary, 
none would be saved. But at the same time I main- 
tain that the yielding to the divine influences, the ex- 
ercising of faith in the Saviour is man's act, and not 
God's : that when so exercised it is really, and hence 
ought to be, and in the Scriptures is, called my faith : 
that the soul has the power to, and in many cases, 
actually does, refuse to believe, against the abundant 
evidence offered by God, and made additionally strong 
by the divine Spirit, and thus is lost — contrary to the 
sincere wish and earnest endeavors of God. "He 
came unto his own, and his own received him not. 
But as many as received him, to them gave he power 
to become the sons of God, even to them that believe 
on his name. Which were born not of blood, nor of 
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of 



146 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



God" (John i. 11-13). "The power contemplated 
seems not to be a new moral ability by means of which 
alone the recipient could exercise saving faith, for the 
receiving of him by faith precedes in the order of nature 
this blessing of sonship toward God. To such as had 
received him, he gave this right or privilege." 1 

Says Alford, " . . . . as many as recognized him 
as that which he was the Word of God and L,ight of 
men." " For as the words received and to them that 
believe, correspond to one another, and denote the 
cause ; so the effect is denoted in the words to become 
sons, and is further explained in this verse." 2 

Speaking of this spiritual reception, Neander says, 
" The appearance of Messiah will cause a sifting of 
the Theocratic people. This presupposes that he will 
not overturn all enemies and set up his kingdom at 
once by the miraculous power of God, but will mani- 
fest himself in such a form that those whose hearts 
are prepared for his coming will recognize him as 
Messiah." 3 

SECTION VI. 

Objections Considered. 

It is now in order to consider the objections against 
the position herein maintained. It is claimed : I. . 
That the natural man is dead in sin, so that he can not 
possibly act, or co-operate with God. Dr. Thomas 
H. Skinner says, " As Christ in his body was dead 
and buried, was raised from the sepulchre by the ex- 
ceeding greatness of God's power, so the sinner is 



1 Cowles. Commentary. 

2 Bengel's " Gnomon of the New Testament 

3 "I^ife of Christ," p. 54. 



AND MAN'S MORAI, NATURE- 1 47 

dead and buried in the grave of sin, and his resurrec- 
tion therefrom is by that very same power exerted in 
him." 4 Rev. Alvan Tobey declares, <( In regenera- 
tion men are wholly passive ; as they also are in the 
first moment of conversion, but by it become active. 
Regeneration is an irresistible act of God's grace, no 
more resistance can be made to it, than there could be 
by the first matter in its creation, or by a dead man in 
his resurrection. ' ' 5 Dr. Charles Hodge thinks that sin- 
ners are as*impotent as the man with a withered arm, 
or the one at the pool of Bethesda. Thus, in refuting 
the doctrine of the Romanists, he says, ''No one de- 
nies that the man in the synagogue co-operated in 
stretching out his withered arm, or that the impotent 
one at the pool was active in obeying the command of 
Christ ' Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine 
house-' .... So Protestants do not deny that the 
soul is active in conversion ; that the 'Arbitrium a 
Deo motum ' freely asserts ; but they do deny that the 
sinner is active and co-operating in the production of 
the new life in the exercise of which the sinner turns 
to God." Again in speaking of, and indorsing the 
Augsburg Confession, he says, the sinner 

can in no way prepare himself to be the subject of this 
grace, he can not merit it, nor can he co-operate with it. 
Regeneration is exclusively the work of the Spirit, in 
which man is the subject and not the agent : . . . . 
therefore it depends on God, and not on man, who are, 
and who are not, to be made partakers of eternal 
life." 6 



4 " Presby. Quarterly," 1873, p. 116. 

5 " Bib. Sacra," Vol. XVIII., p. 382. 

6 " Theology." Vol. II., pp. 718, 720. 



I48 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

Reversing the order of thought, let us reconsider 
the miracles of healing, which, it is claimed, are fair 
illustrations of the workings of grace. In the case of 
the man with a withered hand, it is to be frankly con- 
fessed that so far as the command of the Master is 
concerned, " Stretch forth thine hand," it was, to the 
man, a physical impossibility. This is seen at a glance, 
otherwise, there was no need of seeking the aid of 
Christ. But back of the physical impossibility was the 
will, or the disposition of the man which is«. most im- 
portant factor in the healing. As we have seen, 
Christ invariably demanded faith as the condition of 
healing : because it is not mentioned here, we are not 
to suppose that it was not required. Hence as the 
man earnestly desired to be healed, his will did co- 
operate with the command, and hence the necessary 
strength was received. Had he refused to exercise 
faith, there is no rational doubt that he would have 
remained unhealed. Now so far as this illustrates the 
saving of the soul, it is unmistakably in favor of the 
doctrine for which I am contending. No man can be 
saved of himself : otherwise, why should God provide 
a Saviour ? But man, lost as he is, may have a desire 
to be saved, a disposition to do what is told him, and 
hence, under the influences of the Holy Spirit, he 
wills to believe, he exercises faith in the crucified 
Saviour, and is saved. Here I gladly quote the words 
of Dr. Barnes, who, although a Calvinist, has un- 
qualifiedly indorsed the Arminian doctrine that God 
saves according to man's attitude. " The man might 
have said that he had no strength : that it was a thing 
which he could not do. Yet, being commanded, it 
was his duty to obey. He did so, and was healed. 



AND MAN'S MORA!, NATURE. 



149 



So the sinner. It is his duty to obey whatever God 
commands. He will give strength to those who 
attempt to do his will. It is not right to plead, when 
God commands us to do a thing, that we have no 
strength. God will give us strength, if there is a dis- 
position to obey. Please mark this. " God will give 
us strength if there is a disposition to obey." If Cal- 
vinism be correct, there is no "if"" about it: man 
has no disposition ; can have no disposition toward 
God until it is irresistibly conferred upon him, put 
within him, which of course prompts him to obey. 
This one little word " if " which Dr. Barnes has so 
unconsciously used is the key to the whole subject. 
The Calvinists would banish it from theology, but 
like Banquo's ghost, it will not down. 

This leads to the consideration of the question, Is 
man's moral nature literally dead? The Epistle of 
Paul to the Kphesians affords, perhaps, the most 
plausible texts to support the doctrine that man is 
passive in regeneration. ''And you hath he quick- 
ened who were dead in trespasses and sins. Even 
when we were dead in sins, hath he quickened us 
together with Christ, by grace ye are saved" 
1, 5). 

In the Bible the words ' ' dead, " " death ' ' and 
' ' die ' ' are variously used. At times death is predi- 
cated of the bodily life, as " Lazarus is dead " ; again 
it is affirmed of the soul. "The soul that sinneth, 
it shall die. " * ' Brethren, if any of you do err from the 
truth, and one convert him, Let him know, that he 
which converteth the sinner from the error of his way 
shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multi- 
tude of sins" (James y. 19, 20). In the first pas- 



150 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

sage cited, we understand by the death of Lazarus 
that he had absolutely lost his bodily life : conse- 
quently he was entirely passive in his resurrection. 
Now if this is the meaning which is fairly demanded 
in other passages where death is affirmed of the 
spiritual nature, I have nothing to say. The Calvin- 
ist is right, and I can only bow in silence to that which 
seems to me extremely perplexing. But is this inter- 
pretation demanded ? I not only think that it is not, 
but I am of the opinion that upon investigation it will 
be found utterly incongruous. 

Death, whether physical or spiritual, is the oppo- 
site of life. Spiritual life is communion with God : 
spiritual death takes place the moment that commun- 
ion ceases, hence, spiritual death is alienation from 
God ; a perversion of the moral powers ; a refusal to 
use them in the service and for the glory of God. But 
the non-use of a faculty does not imply its non-exist- 
ence. Consequently the word ' 1 dead ' ' in the passages 
under consideration is to be understood as teaching 
the moral perversity of men, the non-recognition of the 
claims of God, or the bondage of sin in which men are 
living. That the term ' ' dead ' ' can not be as literally 
applied to the moral as to the physical nature of man is 
evident, because (1) Men are addressed as though they 
were capable of co-operating with God. This has 
been clearly shown by the many passages previous^ 
considered in this chapter. Of necessity there can be 
no condition if there is no co-operation. But as Dr. 
Barnes confesses there is a condition : hence there are 
two persons. 

The following passages clearly assert that man 
must do his part in securing divine pardon. The 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 15I 

rebellious Israelites were to remember the mercy of 
God and earnestly seek him : for " if from thence thou 
shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if 
thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy 
soul" (Deut. iv. 29). Speaking through the "Min- 
strel sublime " God says, " Wash ye, make you clean ; 
put away the evil of your doings from before mine 
eyes : cease to do evil ; learn to do well : seek judg- 
ment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead 
for the widow " (Isa. i. 16, 17). 

According to Jeremiah God will punish or forgive 
in the exact proportion as the people correct their 
ways. "Therefore now amend your ways, and your 
doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God ; and 
the Lord will repent him of the evil that he hath pro- 
nounced against you " (xxvi. 13). From Ezekiel we 
learn that the wicked are as active, that they have as 
much power to turn as the righteous. "When a 
righteous man turneth awa}^ from his righteousness, 
and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them ; for his 
iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when 
the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness 
that he hath committed, and doeth that which is law- 
ful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he 
considereth, and turneth away from all his transgres- 
sions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he 
shall not die " (xviii. 26-28). James gives good advice 
when he says " Draw nigh to God, and he will draw 
nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners, and 
purify your hearts, ye double minded. Humble your- 
selves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you 
up" (iv. 8, 10). In vain does Dr. Hodge say that 
these and other passages imply ' ' nothing more than 



152 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



the authoritative declaration of what is obligatory 
upon those to whom it is addressed." I venture the 
assertion that the same language used among men 
would be universally understood as implying, not only 
obligation, but also some degree of power to fulfill the 
obligation. The Bible is written in a plain, common- 
sense way, and it is a fact capable of verification that 
in all ages the great mass of men have so understood 
these declarations. As a matter of historic interest 
the view condemned by Dr. Hodge was quite univer- 
sally accepted by the Christian Church prior to the 
time of Augustine. Hagenbach testifies as follows- 
" Freedom and immortality are those traits of the 
human mind in which is manifested the image of God. 
Such was the doctrine of the primitive Church, con- 
firmed by the general Christian consciousness. All 
the Greek fathers, as well as the apologists, Justin, 
Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and the Latin 
author, Minutius Felix, also the theologians of the 
Alexandrian school, Clement and Origen, exalt the 
autonomy, self-determination of the human soul. . . . 
None but heretics ventured to maintain that man is 
subject to another influence than himself." 1 Dr. 
Hodge frequently seeks to support his doctrines by an 
appeal to the past ; in this case the verdict is against 
him. Men have thought and will continue to think, 
that when the Bible says " Cease to do evil," " Draw 
nigh to God," "Wash you, make you clean ; put away 
the evil of your doings from before mine eyes," it pre- 
supposes that those to whom the words are addressed 
have the power thus to do. ( 2 ) The spiritual nature 
of man is not literally dead, or actually lost, because if 

1 " History of Doctrine." Vol. I., p. 155. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



153 



this were so, there would be no basis for a spiritual 
recovery. Dr. Hodge truly says "The essential attri- 
butes of a spirit are reason, conscience and will. A 
spirit is a rational, moral, and therefore also a free 
agent." 2 It follows therefore, that if these attributes 
which are essential to a spirit should be lost, if they 
are dead — like the body at the termination of the phys- 
ical life — the spirit has lost its essential characteristics. 
Through what avenues then does spiritual truth reach 
the soul ? Can we know anything of God ? Mani- 
festly not ; for as Dr. Hodge admits, 4 ' This conformity 
of nature between man and God is not only the dis- 
tinguishing prerogative of humanity, so far as earthly 
creatures are concerned, but it is also the necessary 
condition of our capacity to know God, and therefore 
the foundation of our religious nature. 3 

But all men have or have not a religious nature. 
If the unregenerate have not a religious nature then 
God, in restoring that which is lost must act immedi- 
ately upon the personality. This Dr. Hodge seems to 
imply when he says of God," He operates when, where 
and how he sees fit, without the intervention of any 
second cause. By a word, or a volition, raising the 
spiritually dead, opening the eyes of the heart, renew- 
ing the will, communicating what the Scriptures call 
a new nature." 4 

If we have spiritual nature before regeneration, 
how is it possible for the soul to be as literally dead 
as the body ? When the body dies, the work of dis- 
integration begins. If not arrested the body soon 



2 " Systematic Theology." Vol. II., p. 97. 

3 Ibid. 

4 " Theology." Vol. II., p. 694. 



154 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

disappears. But if the spiritual nature of man is im- 
perishable, then the soul can not be dead ; and hence 
the only tenable conclusion is that which I previously 
affirmed, viz., that by spiritual death is meant the per- 
version of man's moral powers ; his affections are mis- 
placed, his judgment and conscience — to a greater or 
less degree — say he ought to love God, but his will 
refuses to coincide. Change the ruling purpose and 
the man will become a Christian. 

When Dr. Hodge combats the doctrine of annihi- 
lation, the view for which I am contending is not only 
recognized, but, as it seems to me, heartily accepted : 
he says, ' ' The word life means one thing when used 
of plants, another when used of animals, and another 
when spoken of in reference to the soul of man. The 
death of a plant is one thing, the death of an immor- 
tal soul is something entirely different." Speaking of 
life, he says, "The word, when used of the soul of 
man, means not only conscious being, but a normal 
state of being in the likeness, fellowship, and enjoy- 
ment of God. And in like manner the word death, 
when spoken of the soul, means alienation or separa- 
tion from God." Precisely so. But is a man who is 
alienated from God as really dead, as truly passive as 
when his body dies ? Moreover, the unconscious con- 
cession that 41 life " " when used of the soul of man, 
means .... a normal state of being in the likeness 
. ... of God," signifies that a sinful soul is in an 
abnormal state. But does abnormal mean as passive 
as a dead body ? 

This conclusion is susceptible of a different verifi- 
cation. If, as Dr. Hodge affirms, " Spiritual death is 
as real as corporal death," then when God restores 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



155 



that which is dead — that which is lost — something has 
been added to the soul. To deny this is to say that 
the soul has lost nothing — in the proper sense of that 
term — which is the very thing for which I am con- 
tending. 

But, if I mistake not, Dr. Hodge does deny that 
anything is added to the soul : he says, " Regeneration 
does not consist in a change in any one of the facul- 
ties of the soul, whether the sensibility, or the will, or 
the intellect." Again, it is ''not a change of the 
higher, as distinguished from the lower powers of 
the soul." " Nor any change in the substance of the 
soul." 5 

If regeneration does not change the soul's sub- 
stance, nor the higher, nor the lower powers, nor any 
of the faculties, then so far forth as the spiritual nat- 
ure is concerned it remains the same as before. Con- 
sequently so far as its real nature is concerned, the 
soul has not lost anything, and therefore, is not, and 
can not be said to be as literally dead as the body when 
life departs. Or, quoting the words of Dr. Hodge, 
' ' as real as corporeal death. ' ' Cowles admirably says, 
dead, not in the sense of having no mind, 
but of having a bad mind — not of being without 
moral sense, but of having perverted their moral 
sense and crushed it down." 

Dr. Hodge is entirely too literal in his idea of 
spiritual death, for (3) The Scriptures affirm that man 
has not utterly lost his spiritual sense. Paul declares 
that the heathen, have some sense of right and wrong, 
and at times are excused by their consciences. " For 
when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nat- 



5 "Theology." Vol. III., pp. 15, 17, 32.. 



156 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

ure the things contained in the law, these, having not 
the law, are a law unto themselves. Which shew the 
work of the law written in their hearts, their con- 
science also bearing witness, and their thoughts the 
meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another" 
(Rom. ii. 14, 15). The fall did not deprive man of some 
likeness to God, for the prohibition against shedding 
man's blood is based on the fact that he is yet in the 
divine image. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by 
man shall his blood be shed ; for in the image of God 
made he man" (Gen. ix. 6). The same truth is 
taught by the apostle when he says, ' ' For a man in- 
deed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is 
the image and glory of God ; but the woman is the 
glory of the man" (1. Cor. xi. 7). If the reader should 
suggest that these expressions refer to the intellectual 
nature of man while Dr. Hodge is speaking of the 
spiritual nature, I would respectfulh T reply that in- 
trinsically considered the spiritual is involved in the 
intellectual. An intellectual act is, or is not, spiritual 
according to the motive which prompts the act. This 
is practically conceded by Dr. Hodge when he admits 
that "the soul is a unit." The following testimony 
is peculiarly interesting as coming from eminent Cal- 
vinists. Dr. John Tulloch says, 1 ' Man is a fallen and 
degraded being. He is at the best, be he Pharisee or 
Publican, among the ' lost ' whom Christ came 'to seek 
and to save. But he is noble even in his degradation. 
There is a capacity of divine life in him, beneath all 
the ruin of his nature. He is God-like, even with the 
image of his divine original broken and defaced. 
The divine likeness is obscured, but not obliterated. 
It may be traced amidst all the accumulations of sin- 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 1 57 

fill ruin There is nothing more characteristic 

of our Lord's teaching than this recognition of the di- 
vine original of humanity, and of the divine potency 
which still survives in it. This is the only key to 
his redemptive mission. He came to recover the 
fallen, and to set up that which had been thrown 

down Dark as sin ever is, therefore, in the 

view of our Lord, and fallen as human nature is, it is 
not yet, as it has been sometimes represented, a mere 
mass of corruption. The tone which could say of it 
that it contains nothing but sin, and produces nothing 
which is not damnable, is foreign to the Gospels." 6 
Dr. W. G. T. Sheddsays: "There must be this 
correspondence between the judicial nature of man, 
and the judicial nature of God, or religion is impos- 
sible. How can man even know what is meant by 
justice in the Deity, if there is absolutely nothing of 
the same species in his own rational constitution, 
which if realized in his own character as it is in that 
of God, would make him just, as God is just? How 
can he know what is meant by moral perfection in 
God, if in his own rational spirit there is absolutely 
no ideal of moral excellence, which if realized in 
himself as it is in the Creator, would make him 
excellent as he is excellent ? Without some mental 
correspondent, to which to appeal and commend them- 
selves, the teachings of revelation could not be appre- 
hended. A body of knowledge alone is not the whole ; 
there must be an inlet for it, an organ of apprehen- 
sion. But if there is no such particular part of the 
human constitution as has been described, and these 
calm judgments of the moral sense, and this righteous 



6 "The Christian Doctrine of Sin," pp. 131, 132. 



158 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

displeasure of the conscience, are to be put upon a 
level with the workings of the fancy and imagination, 
or the selfish passions of the" human heart, then there 
is no point of contact and communication between the 
nature of man and the being of God. There is no 
part of his own complex being upon which man may 
fall back, with the certainty of not being mistaken in 
judgments of ethics and religion. Both anchor and 
anchoring-ground are gone, and he is afloat upon the 
boundless, starless ocean of ignorance and scepticism. 
Even if revelations are made, they can not enter his 
mind. There is no contacting surface through which 
they can approach and take hold of his being. They 
can not be seen to be what they really are, the absolute 
truth of God, because there is no eye with which to 
see them." 7 

II. It is objected that the view here taught con- 
tradicts many passages of Scripture in which men are 
said to be drawn unto the Father: viz., "No man 
can come to me, except the Father which hath sent 
me draw him : and I will raise him up at the last day. 
Every man therefore that hath heard, and learned of 
the Father, cometh unto me. No man can come unto 
me, except it were given unto him of my Father" 
(John vi. 44, 45, 65). 

But I find no difficulty with these declarations. I 
accept them as teaching the necessity of a divine influ- 
ence for the salvation of the soul. Nowhere have I 
taught that man can save himself. On the contrary I 
have strenuously maintained that without God, the 
soul is hopelessly lost in sin. Denying the passivity 
of man is not denying the activity of God. To be 



' "Discourses and Essays," pp. 290, 291. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



159 



saved men must be drawn to Jesus, but the yielding 
to those influences is implied in the exercise of faith 
which is man's part in, and the sole condition of, salva- 
tion. The merciful Father earnestly seeks to draw all 
unto Jesus. Why he does not, the Saviour's own words 
inform us : ' 'And ye will not come to me, that ye might 
nave life" (John v. 40). Hence as Neander truly 
says : ' ' He who will not follow the Divine ' draw- 
ing ' (revealed in his dawning consciousness of God) 
can never attain to faith in Christ, and must feel him- 
self repelled from his w r ords." 8 

The same principle will apply to such passages as 
" My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and 
they follow me : and I give unto them eternal life. 
. . . . " (John x. 27, 28). "It is given unto you to 
know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to 
them it is not given" (Matt. xiii. 11). "I thank 
thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because 
thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, 
and hast revealed them unto babes" (xi. 25). The 
Master's sheep are those, who, having the right dis- 
position, as Dr. Barnes says, or in whom there is the 
spirit of faith, are drawn unto ' ' the Lamb of God 
which taketh away the sin of the world." And what 
was the reason why ' ' these things, " " the mysteries 
of the kingdom of heaven ' ' were concealed ' 4 from the 
wise and prudent " ? Let the reader turn again to the 
words of the Master, Matt. xiii. 12 : " For whoso- 
ever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have 
more abundance ; but whosoever hath not from him 
shall be taken away, even that he hath." Here is a 
most fortunate occurrence. The very passage which 

8 "Life of Christ," p. 106. 



l6o CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

Dr. Hodge quotes as favoring the doctrine that God 
purposely withholds enlightening grace, Jesus ex- 
plains, giving as the reason why the mysteries of the 
kingdom are concealed from some men, that in them 
there is a fatal lack — they have no desire to improve 
their opportunities. 

III. It is said that the Scriptures declare repent- 
ance to be a gift from God. In speaking to the un- 
believing Jews, Peter says of Jesus, " Him hath God 
exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a 
Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgive- 
ness of sins" (Acts v. 31). Paul tells Timothy that 
' ' the servant of the Lord must not strive ; but be 
gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meek- 
ness instructing those that oppose themselves ; if God 
peradventure will give them repentance to the ac- 
knowledging of the truth" (11. Tim. ii. 24, 25). Now, 
I ask the reader, in all fairness, what are we to under- 
stand by these passages ? As truth seekers we are to 
open our minds to every ray of light, and so far as 
possible, judge things upon their merits. If Dr. 
Hodge's interpretation is the only one allowable, or if 
it is more consistent, with the general subject under 
consideration, then I must accept it. So far as I 
know, there are but three possible views: viz., (1) 
That of Dr. Hodge — faith and repentance the direct 
gifts of God withheld from the non-elect. (2) That of 
Dr. Whedon, who says of 11. Tim. ii. 24, 25, that it 
is ' ' the power, not the act of repentance ' ' which is 
divinely given ; and ( 3 ) That these declarations are 
used comprehensively to express the general work of 
salvation and not to discriminate concerning the divine 
and human. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE). l6l 

I can not agree with Dr. Whedon's exposition, 
because if I mistake not, the fundamental principles 
of his theology necessitate the conclusion that all men 
have the power to repent. 9 But in n. Tim. ii. 25 
there is a conditional giving ; there was something of 
which these " opposers " were destitute. They may 
obtain it ; otherwise the ' ' if " is of no force ; hence it 
can not be the power to repent which is here meant, 
for Arminians have always earnestly contended that 
God does give power for the obeying of his commands ; 
but in these passages that which is affirmed as coming 
from God is not given unconditionally ; nay, it might 
be withheld. 

My reasons for rejecting the interpretation of Dr. 
Hodge will be manifest as I elucidate the third view. 
For a correct understanding of this subject we must 
turn to the Master's words expressed to the disciples 
just before his ascension. "Thus it is written and 
thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the 
dead the third day. And that repentance and remis- 
sion of sins should be preached in his name among all 
nations, beginning at Jesusalem " (Lukexxiv. 46, 47). 

The Master here describes the future work of the 
apostles. In its spirit it was the same as he had been 
doing, and in which they had assisted him, as we find 
from the following : " From that time Jesus began to 
preach, and to say, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven 
is at hand " (Matt. iv. 17). 4< And they went out, 
and preached that men should repent " (Mark vi. 12). 



9 " Power must underlie obligation." " Will," p. 398. " Man is . . . 
born in a ' state of initial salvation ' as Fletcher of Madeley called it, and 
the means of final salvation are amply placed within the reach of his free 
choice" " Meth. Quarterly," 1879, p. 411. 



162 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

As this was the work of the disciples before the ascen- 
sion, so was it afterwards. It was God's work ; it was 
the work of saving souls estranged from the Father, 
hence, it is repeatedly called the work of salvation ; 
hence, my view of these passages is simply this : they 
speak of repentance and of the remission of sins in a 
popular way, as included in the work of salvation. 
Thinking of the results as a whole, remembering, that 
without divine aid, salvation is impossible, the apostles 
used common, instead of scientific or theological 
language. This method of speaking was adopted by 
the Saviour when he said to the woman of Samaria, 
"Salvation is of the Jews." An extreme literalist 
could say with the same degree of plausibility Jesus 
here taught that the Jews could save. The Master's 
meaning is sufficiently clear the moment we consider 
the circumstances in which the words were uttered, 
namely : that salvation comes through or by the He- 
brew nation as God's chosen people. But in my opin- 
ion the meaning of repentance as here used is no less 
clear when we fairly consider the circumstances in 
which the word was employed. 

This will be more evident as we consider a few 
passages in which the term repentance occurs. " But 
go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, 
and not sacrifice ; for I am not come to call the right- 
eous, but sinners to repentance" (Matt. ix. 13). 
Peter explains his strange conduct while with the Gen- 
tiles by saying, ' 4 Forasmuch then as God gave them- 
the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the 
Lord Jesus Christ ; what was I, that I could with- 
stand God ? When the}'- heard these things, they 
held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATDRE. 



I6 3 



hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto 
life." (Acts xi. 17, 18). "Or despisest thou the 
.riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuf- 
fering ; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth 
thee to repentance?" (Rom. ii. 4). "For the gifts 
and calling of God are without repentance. " (xi. 29). 
Peter declares that God is ' ' not willing that any 
should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 
(11. Pet. iii. 9). In these passages the general work 
of salvation is the primary idea ; yet repentance is 
spoken of as the result of Christ's coming and call ; 
or as the consequence of a right perception of God's 
goodness. While " salvation is of the Jews," it came 
by them to the Gentiles ; hence, repentance is said to 
have been granted unto them. But why were the 
Jews rejected ? Because they sinned and would not 
repent. Hence my conclusion concerning these pas- 
sages is this : they were intended to express the gen- 
eral work of salvation, which of necessity is of God. 
The Holy Spirit's influences followed, give as a result, 
repentance for sin and salvation : Yet the faith and 
repentance are acts of the individual, which ma}^ or 
may not be exercised. IV. It is said the Bible de- 
clares faith to be the gift of God, namely, " For to 
one is given by the spirit the word of wisdom ; to an- 
other the word of knowledge by the same spirit ; to 
another faith by the same spirit ; to another the gifts 
of healing by the same spirit " (1. Cor. xii. 8, 9). 
1 ' For by grace are ye saved through faith ; and that 
not of yourselves; it is the gift of God" (Eph. ii. 8). 
For a correct understanding of the first passage we 
must remember that chapters xii— xiv. are devoted to 
a consideration of spiritual gifts. In the Church of 



164 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

Corinth there had been not a little confusion growing 
out of the exercising of the different gifts conferred 
upon them by the Holy Spirit. While some were 
prophesying, others were interpreting ; while some were 
praying, others were singing, thus bringing the faith 
of the gospel into disrepute. The apostle corrects 
this by showing that while there is a diversity of gifts 
there is but one source whence they come : hence, as 
God is not the author of confusion they must become 
more orderly. Consequently, as a matter of fact, 
there is no reference in the mind of the apostle to the 
gift of saving, or justifying faith : that is necessarily 
presupposed to be possessed by all to whom he is 
writing ; the faith here spoken of is that kind of faith, 
trust, or strength necessary for the performance of 
some daring or extraordinary duty. Precisely like 
Luther's experience at the Diet of Worms. He al- 
ready possessed saving faith : now, as he stands before 
his enemies, the truth as it is in Jesus Christ must be 
clear and strong ; hence, if he will seek and trust di- 
vine grace, his voice shall penetrate the four quarters 
of the earth. The same general idea is expressed by 
Lange. ' ' Not that faith which receives salvation in 
Christ, i. e., justifying faith, but a strong confidence 
in the divine omnipotence, or in the power of Christ 
as able to make itself manifest in extraordinary deeds ; 
or to afford and insure help of a supernatural kind ; 
or, in other words, a confidence which shall enable a 
man to perform these deeds, or to afford this help." 
Generically the same kind of faith which was lacking 
in the disciples when they attempted, but failed, to 
cure the lunatic son. As we have seen their faith was 
increased by witnessing the resurrection of Lazarus. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE}. 1 65 

The Spirit sanctified this unto their spiritual good ; 
consequently in this sense faith comes by, or through 
the Spirit. 

Concerning the passage in Ephesians it is pertinent 
to ask What is the gift of God ? Is it the grace or 
the faith ? If the latter, then so far, the discussion 
must be decided in favor of Dr. Hodge. If the former, 
then the last support to the doctrine that faith is a 
direct gift of God is removed. I shall now endeavor 
to show that such is the fact. Alford's translation is 
as follows : ' ' For by grace have ye been saved through 
faith ; and that not of yourselves ; of God is the gift. ' ' 
Commenting on the text, he says," ' by grace ' above, 
expressed the objective instrumental condition of your 
salvation, — this ' through faith ' the subjective medial 
condition ; it has been effected by grace and appre- 
hended by faith : and this (your salvation your having 
been saved) not of yourselves ; God's is the gift." 
Lange says " The emphasis rests on ' by grace,' which 
is placed first, being the causa efficiens ; the causa 
apprehe?idens follows, as a modal qualification." 
Again, ' ' ' And that ' refers back to the idea of the 
preceding verb : ' ye are saved ' in the sense of et 
quid em: and this in addition I say, or and this, being 
saved through faith, comes not of yourselves." The 
testimony of Dr. Riddle, the American Editor, is quite 
suggestive. " The reference to salvation is adopted by 
Calvin, Rueckert, Harless.Olshausen, Meyer, DeWette, 
Stier, Eadie, Alford, Ellicott, and every commentator 
of note since the days of Bengel, except Hodge." 

Elsewhere Dr. Riddle says " on doctrinal 

grounds there is no objection to the reference to faith ; ' ' 
and, quoting Dr. Hodge, "The analogy of Scripture is 



1 66 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

in favor of this view." But this is not so evident. As 
the discussion continues the reader will see that the 
analogy of Scripture requires the doctrine which has 
been maintained in this chapter. If the clearest pas- 
sages of Scripture concerning the origin and nature of 
faith, if the texts upon which Dr. Hodge confidently 
relies do not teach that faith is a direct gift of God, it 
is certainly contradicted by the analogy of faith. This 
is more clearly seen by remembering that throughout 
the Scriptures the grace of God, the salvation of the 
Lord Jesus Christ is designated " the gift of God." To 
the woman of Samaria the Master said, " If thou knew- 
est the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, 
Give me to drink ; thou wouldest have asked of him, 
and he would have given thee living water" (John iv. 
10). Bengel says "The gift is the living water. " 
Me} T er refers it to the meeting and conversation with 
Jesus. Alford thinks it is the gift of the Holy Spirit. 
The fundamental idea is the same. Salvation is the 
gift. Its conditionality is unmistakably affirmed by 
the words " if thou knewest " — " thou wouldest have 
asked." As Dr. Hanna has said, " Still from the lips 
of the Saviour of the world, over all the world the 
words are sounding forth : ' If any man thirst, let him 
come to me and drink.' Still the manner of his dis- 
pensation of the great gift stands embodied in the 
words : ' ' Thou wouldest have asked, and I would 
have given thee living water.' " 

In the light of this investigation we more clearly 
seethe true moral relation between evidence and faith. 
God can not compel the mind to believe : there may 
be, and is such abundant evidence as to convince all 
who have any disposition to believe : at the same time 



AND man's moral nature. 



167 



there must be and is full scope for men to refuse. This, 
I say, must be so : otherwise there can be no test, no 
responsibility, and so far forth, no merit or demerit. 
In this connection I am happy to quote from Doctor 
Mark Hopkins. " Certainly, if God has provided evi- 
dence as convincing as that of the forty-seventh prop- 
osition of Euclid, so that all men have to do is to 
examine it with candor, then they must be without 
excuse if they do not believe. This, I suppose, God 
has done. He asks no one to believe except on the 
ground of evidence, and such evidence as ought to 
command assent. Let a man examine this evidence 
with entire candor, laying aside all prejudices, simply 
according to the laws of evidence, and then if he is not 
convinced, I believe God will so far forth acquit him 
in the great day of judgment. But if God has given 
man such evidence that a fair, and full, and perfectly 
candid examination is all that is needed to necessitate 
belief, then, if men do not believe, it will be in this 
very law that we shall find the ground of their con- 
demnation. The difficulty will not lie in their mental 
constitution as related to evidence, nor in the want of 
evidence, but in that moral condition, that state of the 
heart, or the will, which prevented a proper examina- 
tion." 1 

The thought of Pascal is admirable. "Divine 
truths reach the spirit through the heart. We must 
love divine things in order to know them. Christian- 
ity reveals herself to those only who possess a sincere 
longing to know her. ' ' 



3 " Evidences of Christianity.' 



CHAPTER IV. 



For What Are The Non-Elect Eternally 
Punished ? 

" The ivy in a dungeon grew, 
Unfed by rain, uncheered by dew ; 
The pallid leaflets only drank 
Cave-moistures foul, and odors dank. 

But through the dungeon-grating high 
There fell a sunbeam from the sky ; 
It slept upon the grateful floor 
In silent gladness evermore. 

The ivy felt a tremor shoot 
Through all its fibres to the root ; 
It felt the light, it saw the ray, 
It strove to blossom into day ; 

It grew, it crept, it pushed, it clomb — 
Long had the darkness been its home : 
But well it knew, though veiled jn night, 
The goodness and the joy of light. 

It reached the beam — it thrilled — it curled — 
It blessed the warmth that cheers the world ; 
It rose towards the dungeon bars — 
It looked upon the sky and stars. 

It felt the life of bursting spring, 

It heard the happy skylark sing ; 

It caught the breath of morns and eves, 

And wooed the swallow to its leaves. 

By rains and dews, and sunshine fed, 
Over the outer wall it spread ; 
And in the daybeam waving free, 
It grew into a steadfast tree. 

Wouldst know the moral of the rhyme ? 
Behold the heavenly light and climb ! 
To every dungeon comes a ray 
Of God's interminable day ! " 

168 



CHAPTER IV. 



For What Ark The Non-Ekect Eternally 
Punished ? 

Calvinism claims to be the teaching of Scripture. 
In this Part I have tried to bring the Augustinian or 
Calvinistic theology face to face with the Word of 
God, thus enabling the reader to judge for himself. 
So far, the claims of the Calvinist have not been veri- 
fied. The previous chapters have shown a great dis- 
parity between the so-called orthodox faith and the 
Scriptures. I shall now attempt to show that Calvin- 
ism still further contradicts the plain teaching of God's 
Word. 

SECTION I. 

Can the Non-Elect be Saved ? 

The Bible answers this question clearly and con- 
sistently by declaring that so far as the will of God 
is related to the salvation of the race, all may be saved. 
Christ came to seek and to save the lost (Luke xix. 
10). But all are lost. Yes, and the gracious Saviour 
died for all, that through faith in him all might be 
saved (John iii. 16, 17). The one condition of salva- 
tion — faith which worketh by love — is, as we have 
seen, the part which the soul must do. Refusing to 
believe, the sinner must die in his sins : he can not be 

saved. This is so, not because it is the will of God, 

169 



I70 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

nor because God could, but does not give saving faith; 
but it is because the soul thus refusing to accept the 
divine promises places itself beyond the reach of sav- 
ing grace (John xvi. 8, 9; Matt, xxiii. 37; Heb. xi. 6). 
But as we proceed, the reader will please notice that 
Calvinism denies that which the Scriptures clearly 
affirm. 

Calvin delares the doctrine of salvation ' ' is abused 
when it is represented as effectually available to all. ' ' 1 

Toplady says, God never designed to save every 
individual ; since if he had, every individual would 
and must be saved, for his counsel shall stand, and he 

will do all his pleasure Neither is it possible, 

in the very nature of the thing, that they should be 
elected to salvation, or ever obtain it, whom God fore- 
knew should perish ; for then the divine act of preter- 
ition would be changeable, wavering and precarious. 
. . . . If between the elect and reprobate there was not 
a great gulf fixed, so that neither can be otherwise 
than they are, then the will of God, which is alone 
the cause why some are chosen, and others not, would 
be rendered inefficacious and of no effect." 2 

In a work entitled " A Defence of Some of the 
Important Doctrines of the Gospel" and published 
by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, Rev. John 
Sladen says, ' ' Some allow of a particular election, but 
deny any such thing as non-election or pretention : 
they grant that a certain number shall infallibly be 
saved, but at the same time, affirm that all may be 
saved if they will. This is an opinion that is absurd 



1 " Institutes." B. III., Ch. XXII.. Sec. 10. 

2 " Works," pp. 692, 693. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



171 



in its very nature, as well as it is evidently contrary 
to the Word of God." 3 

While Dr. Griffin is speaking of the non-elect as 
marching on to death, he makes his opponent say as 
a reason for their fate, " they do not believe " : to this 
he answers ' ' Aye, and one reason why they do not 
believe is that faith is the gift of God." 4 

Beyond all controversy faith is necessary to salva- 
tion ; how then, is it possible for the non-elect to be 
saved if God has determined to withhold the gift of 
saving faith ? There is no such possibility if Calvinism 
be true. The above extracts sufficiently indicate the 
drift of consistent Calvinism. But there are theolo- 
gians who prefer the name of 1 ' modern " or ' ' modi- 
fied ' ' Calvinists who endeavor to maintain both sides 
of the question. One moment they declare that inas- 
much as faith is withheld from the non-elect they can 
not be saved ; but presto change, and the very reverse 
is affirmed, namely, that if the non-elect will only 
believe they may and will be saved. This is one of 
the necessary features of the so-called " modified Cal- 
vinism." It is quite difficult to distinguish its true 
bearings. The student is perplexed by the many 
plain contradictions which constantly meet him. It 
has the reputation of being less repugnant than the 
older Calvinism, but it is at the expense of consistency 
and the logical forms of thought. 

That the reader may judge for himself concerning 
the validity of this charge, I shall now quote from the 



3 p. 76. 

4" Divine Efficiency," p. 184. 



172 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



writings of a few able authorities, placing their dif- 
ferent utterances side by side. Dr. Venema says : 

"All have common grace, " God determined what the 
and it is possible for all to be- creatures would do, and what 
lieve ; and if they will believe their condition would be, who 
they will be saved." p. 303. should believe, and whoshould 

not : and that his decree re- 
garding them and everything 
relating to them was absolute. ' ' 
p. 290. 



The following is from Nehemiah Adams. 



"No injustice is done to 
those who are left : salvation 
is consistently offered to them, 
and their state is no worse 
than though all like them had 
perished." p. 246. 



"True, he saw that no one 
would turn without some spe- 
cial act on his part." p. 254. 



Dr. Kmmons says : 

" If men have natural power 
to frustrate, as well as to ful- 
fill the decrees of God, then 
the non-elect have as fair an 
opportunity of being saved as 
the elect." Vol. II., p. 368. 



"He decreed the existence, 
the character, the conduct and 
the state of all moral beings 
both in time and eternity. He 
decreed that some should be 
the monuments of his good- 
ness, some, the monuments of 
his justice ; and some the 
monuments of his mercy. 
And he decreed all the means 
by which his rational creatures 
should be brought to their 
final and eternal condition." 
P- 333- 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



173 



Dr. Leonard Woods says that 

" God will save all the uon- "He knows men will not 

elect who comply with the repent, unless by his Spirit, 

conditions of salvation." Vol. he gives them repentance." 

I. p- 543- P- 511- 



The celebrated John H 

"Whatsoever there is that 
comes within the compass of 
a promise for the encourage- 
ment of sinners to return and 
come to God, it will all be 
made good to a tittle upon his 
account that is worthy ; all 
promises being yea and amen 
in him." p. 1139. 



ve affirms : 

' ' Nothing but the almighty 
power of grace can make an 
enemy heart become friendly 
towards God and towards his 
Christ : can vanish the ma- 
lignity of an obstinate infidel- 
ity ; can mollify an obdurate 
heart and make it dissolve and 
melt, as in repentance it 
must." p. 1 139. 



Although Rev. John SI; 
Dr. Wm. Smith absurd £ 
reader judge for himself: 

" It (election) embraces no 
decree or purpose that hinders 
any one from coming to Christ 
and being saved if they 
would." p. 29. 



en calls the following from 
d unbiblical, I will let the 

"His decrees are not de- 
pendent upon his foreknowl- 
edge, not identical with it. . 
But when all equally deserve 
hell, if he sees fit to save some 
for a display of his mercy, and 
leave others to the fate they 
choose for a display of his 
justice, though the former 
have great ground of gratitude, 
the others have no cause of 
complaint." p. 57. 



174 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

The same beautifully consistent " if " is thus put 
by Milner in his " Practical Sermons," Vol. II.: 

"All men maybe saved if "But such is our natural 
they please. There wants the enmity against God, that 
will only." p. 243. though the blood of his Son 

was freely spilt for all men 
without exception, not one 
soul would return to God by 
true repentance were it not for 
his blessed and adorable pur- 
pose of election, which before 
the foundation of the world, 
determined that some souls 
should be fitted by his univer- 
sal redemption and led to re- 
pentance toward God and to 
faith toward our Lord Jesus 
Christ." p. 243. 

It does not require a very profound insight to 
detect the sophism in the following from Dr. Charles 
Hodge: 



"The righteousness of Christ 
being of infinite value or mer- 
it, and being in its nature pre- 
cisely what all men need, may 
be offered to all men. It is 
thus offered to the elect and to 
the non-elect ; and it is offered 
to both classes conditionally. 
That condition is a cordial ac- 
ceptance of it as the only 
ground of justification. If any 
of the elect (being adults) fail 
thus to accept of it, they per- 
ish. If any of the non-elect 
should believe, they would be 



The fall of Adam 
brought all his posterity into 
a state of condemnation, sin, 
and misery, from which they 
are utterly unable to deliver 
themselves. . . . For the sal- 
vation of those thus chosen to 
eternal life, God gave his own 
Son, to become man, and to 
obey and suffer for his people, 
thus making a full satisfaction 
for sin, and bringing in ever- 
lasting righteousness, render- 
ing the ultimate salvation of 
the elect absolutely certain. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



175 



saved. What more does any 
Anti-Augustiniau scheme pro- 
vide?" pp. 555, 556. Vol. II. 



That while the Holy Spirit, in 
his common operations, is 
present with every man, so 
long as he lives, restraining 
evil and exciting good, his cer- 
tainly efficacious and saving 
power is exercised only in be- 
half of the elect." p. 333. 

Outlines of Theology ' ' by 

Of the "inner call" our 
author says, 1 ' That it is an 
exercise of divine power upon 
the soul, immediately, spirit- 
ual, and supernatural, com- 
municating a new "spiritual 
life, and thus making a new 
mode of spiritual activity pos- 
sible. That repentance, faith, 
trust, hope, love, etc., are pure- 
ly and simply the sinner's own 
acts ; but as such are possible 
to him only in virtue of the 
change wrought in the moral 
condition of his faculties by 
the recreative power of God." 
P- 336. 

Truly our Calvinistic friends are magnanimous. 
The non-elect may be saved ' ' if they would only be- 
lieve," and yet saving faith is the gift of God. The 
non-elect may be saved if they will exercise true re- 
pentance, yet they are in a state of condemnation, sin 
and misery from which they are utterly unable to de- 
liver themselves." The non-elect are "worthy of 
condemnation for rejecting such a Saviour," while at 
the same time they can not exercise faith, hope, and 



The following is from ' 
Dr. A. A. Hodge: 

"A salvation all sufficient 
and exactly adapted to his ne- 
cessities is honestly offered to 
every man to whom the gospel 
comes ; and in every case it is 
his, if he believes ; and in no 
case does anything prevent his 
believing other than his own 
evil disposition. ... If a man 
is responsible for a bad heart, 
and the exercises thereof, he 
must be above all, worthy of 
condemnation for rejecting 
such a Saviour. " p. 317. 



176 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

love until the change is 1 ' wrought in the moral condi- 
tion of 'their' faculties by the recreative power of 
God. ' ' While I abhor the peculiar doctrines of Cal- 
vinism, I have some respect for the logical consist- 
ency and fearlessness of the older theology ; but away 
with this so-called "Modified Calvinism." It ex- 
plains nothing. Nay, it increases the difficulties by 
outraging the reader's intelligence. 

SECTION 11. 

How Certain Calvinists Vindicate the Divine Justice and 
Sincerity. 

The student of theology occasionally meets a Cal- 
vinistic theologian who seems to be in trouble. The 
system may be perfectly satisfactory to him ; but he 
has a certain feeling — at times a positive conviction — 
that to others the doctrines of Calvinism are not so 
pleasant, nor reasonable. Thinking that he is sus- 
tained by the truth of reason no less than of revela- 
tion, he often attempts to remove the objections which 
are urged against his position. 

The former section disclosed the fact that the non- 
elect can not be saved : that even those who declare 
they may if they will only believe, also declare that 
without the gift of faith they can not believe : There 
is a third class, however, whose views are somewhat 
peculiar, and which in their opinion, satisfactorily solve 
the perplexing question. These I now propose to 
consider in detail : and first, let us hear from Dr. Isaac 
Watts. Of the non-elect he says, ' ' God himself has put 
no effectual and insurmountable bar, or rather no bar at 
all, in their way, to prevent their acceptance of his 



AND MAN'S MORAI, NATURE. 



177 



grace. His choosing other persons who were fellow 
sinners, to make them certain partakers of this grace, 
is no hindrance to those who were not chosen, from 
accepting the same. It is my opinion that there is 
such a thing as a general sufficiency of pardon, grace 
and happiness, provided for all mankind by Jesus 
Christ. And it is left to their own natural powers 
under common helps to accept or refuse it." Then he 
gives the following to show that this must be so : "It 
is very hard to vindicate the sincerity of the blessed 
God, or his Son, in their universal offers of grace and 
salvation to men, and their sending ministers and such 
messages and invitations to accept of mercy, if there 
be no such a conditional pardon and salvation provided 
for them. ... It is hard to suppose that the great God, 
who is truth itself, and sincere and faithful in all his 
dealings, should call upon dying men to trust in a 
Saviour for eternal life, when this Saviour has no eter- 
nal life intrusted with him to give them, if they 
do repent. It is hard to conceive how the great Gov- 
ernor of the world can be sincere in inviting and re- 
quiring sinners who are on the brink of hell to cast 
themselves upon an empty word of invitation, a mere 
shadow and appearance of support, if there be noth- 
ing real to bear them up from those deeps of destruc- 
tion, nothing but mere words and empty invitations." 
Again : "I say it is hard to suppose all this should 
be no real and just representation, but a mere amuse- 
ment. That all these proposals of mercy and displays 
of the gracious dealings of God, should be an empty 
shew with regard to all the millions of mankind, 
besides the few that are chosen to happiness : and that 
they should really be so fixed in a wretched, hopeless^ 



178 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

and deplorable state under the first sin of the first 
man that they are utterly irrecoverable from the ruins 
of it ; and that even as unalterably so as devils are 
without any hope of recovering from their state of 
guilt and misery, for whom there was no Saviour pro- 
vided, and whom God has not treated in this way of 
precept, promise and threatening." 5 

The reader will please notice that this explanation 
is given as the only one which satisfactorily vindicate 
the divine goodness and justice. But so far as it 
solves the problem, the doctrine of Dr. Watts is Ar- 
minianism. 

This is evident from the following considerations : 
(1) Dr. Watts held the Arminian doctrine that the 
will is self-determining. Section 3 of his essay ' 1 On 
the Freedom of Will in God and in Creatures," is en- 
titled "The Will is a Self-determining Power." In 
speaking of the advantages of this doctrine, he says, 
' ' This scheme of the self-determining power of the 
will represents the doctrine of the freedom of man's 
will, and the power and prevalence of divine grace in 
a most happy harmony and consistency, perhaps be- 
yond what any other scheme can represent." 6 

(2 ) If the human will is self-determining, then it 
legitimately follows that salvation is a matter of choice : 
God saves all who will exercise faith in the Saviour : 
hence Dr. Watts says of salvation, " . . . . it is left 
to their own natural powers, under common helps to 
acceptor refuse it." Again, this scheme also fixes 
the guilt of evil actions entirely on the will of the 
creature, by ascribing to the will a free power to de- 

5 "Works." Vol. III. pp. 468, 470. 

6 Pages, 262, 575. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



179 



terraine itself, either to choose or to refuse after any 
representations of good or evil, fitness or unfitness, 
made by the understanding. 7 

(3) Dr. Watts held the Arminian doctrine of divine 
foresight. ' ' I grant, always, and have always granted, 
that wheresoever there is such an antecedent superior 
fitness of things, God acts according to it, so as never 
to contradict it : and particularly in all his judicial 
proceedings as a Governor and Distributer of rewards 
and punishments, he has a constant regard to vice, 
and virtue, to superior fitness and unfitness, though 
he may reward or rather bestow beyond our merit, or 
he may punish less." In speaking of the different 
theories of " reconciliation " he asks "A," " Does he 
not also believe, that the blessed God foresees and 
foreknows that these men, by the free use of their 
natural powers, thus far assisted by divine grace, will 
be finally and effectually persuaded to believe and 
repent, and be saved ? Has not the blessed God, who 
knows all his own works from the beginning, designed 
from eternity to bestow all these advantages on these 
particular persons, and to carry them on so far, that 
he foresees their repentance, and salvation will be the 
certain consequences of this his grace, though not the 
necessary effects of it ? " 8 

Believing that the reader can readily recognize 
these statements as essentially Arminian, I will not 
stop to adduce proof beyond one statement from Dr. 
Charles Hodge, viz., " It is plain that the main point of 
difference between the later Lutheran, the Arminian, 
and the Wesleyan schemes, and that of Augustinians 



• Pages, 468, 572. 
s Pages, 591, 492. 



l8o CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



is, that according to the latter, God, and according to 
the former, man, determines who are to be saved." 9 

(4) Dr. Watts is strongly condemned by later Cal- 
vinists, because his views logically necessitate an 
abandonment of Calvinism. The younger Edwards 
speaking of the state of things in the religious world 
at the time w T hen his father commenced writing his 
treatise on the Will, says, "The Calvinists themselves 
began to be ashamed of their own cause and to give it up 
so far at least as relates to liberty and necessity. This 
was true especially of Doctors Watts and Doddridge, 
who, in their day, were accounted leaders of the Cal- 
vinists. They must needs bow in the house of Rim- 
mon and admit the self-determining power (of the 
will) which once admitted and pursued to its ultimate 
results, entirely overthrows the doctrines of regener- 
tion, of our dependence for renewing and sanctifying 
grace, of absolute decrees, of the saints' perseverance, 
and of all the other doctrines of grace." 

A mournful confession truly, but one which un- 
mistakably shows that the fundamental principles of 
Dr. Watts' theology were Arminian. So far there- 
fore as the solution is to be accepted it simply con- 
firms the position of the Arminian. But what shall 
be done with the Calvinistic doctrine under consider- 
ation ? It has not been satisfactorily explained ; 
hence, " it is very hard to vindicate the sincerity of 
the blessed God, or his Son, in their universal offers 
of grace and salvation to men, and their sending min- 
isters with such messages and invitations to accept of 
mercy, if there be no such a conditional pardon and 
salvation provided for them." At this point I could 



9 " Systematic Theology," Vol. II., p. 330. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURK. l8l 

dismiss Dr. Watts and his solution ; but if the reader 
will be patient I should like to investigate this won- 
derful explanation a little further. Rev. Henry L. 
Kendall has said, "One detects in the theological 
writings of Dr. Watts a mingling of the poetical with 
the logical element. Not only does it add a glow to 
the style and language, but it also sometimes per- 
forms functions of an originative faculty. There are 
some peculiar theories pertaining to the mysteries of 
Christianity, the first suggestions of which one could 
easily fancy had their birth in this part of the author's 
nature. Perhaps this, also, may serve to explain why 
some parts of these works were disparaged in the eyes 
of the early American divines, and why they failed to 
receive a more hearty acceptance from them. The 
sinewy New England theology would have for the 
foundation stone of its new structure, nothing but the 
solid granite of reason. It looked askance at any idea 
which had its origin from that other quarter, and asked, 
" Can any good thing come out of Nazareth ? " 1 If 
I am not much mistaken, we shall find things which 
must have come from the poetical nature of Dr. Watts. 
As we have seen, he earnestly contends for a condi- 
tional salvation which is sincerely offered to all. To 
him, " it is hard to suppose that the great God, who 
is truth itself and sincere and faithful in all his deal- 
ings, should call upon dying men to trust in a Saviour 
for eternal life, when this Saviour has not eternal life 
intrusted with him to give them, if they do repent." 
But strange as it may seem, this is precisely what the 
great God does if the language of Dr. Watts is ac- 
cepted as meaning anything : for (i) Dr. Watts declares 



i " Bib. Sacra," 1875, p. 422, 423 



182 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

that Christ did not die with an equal design for all 
men. " It seems evident to me from several texts o^ 
the w T ord of God, that Christ did not die with an equal 
design for all men ; but that there is a special number 
whom the Father chose and gave to the Son, whose 
salvation is absolutely secured by the death and inter- 
cession of Christ." 2 ,In the light of his other decla- 
rations this is a most remarkable statement. Beyond 
all controversy Christ did die to save the elect — no 
matter now of whom that class is composed. But if 
he did not die with an equal design for all men, then 
surely, he did not die to save the non-elect : hence if 
he did not die to save the non-elect, for them, there is 
no salvation : consequently all talk about a condi- 
tional salvation offered to all is mere logomach}^ ; the 
promises of God, are after all, ' ' but a mere amusement, ' ' 
' 1 an empty shew. ' ' If the former affirmations of Dr. 
Watts meant anything more than the usual Calvinistic 
language — "sufficient for all, but efficacious only for 
the elect " this unfortunate concession has made them 
null and void by depriving them of all logical consist- 
ency. (2) L,et us now see if he fares any better as 
regards the power of the non-elect to repent. ' ' All 
the other impotence and inability therefore to sinners 
to repent or believe, properly speaking, is but moral, or 
seated chiefly in their wills. It is a great disinclina- 
tion or aversion in these natural faculties, to attend to, 
learn, or practice the things of God and religion, and 
this holds them fast in their sinful state in a similar 
way, as if the} T w 7 ere blind and dead ; and I said the 
final event will be the same, that is, they will never 
repent without almighty grace ; ' ' again, 1 ' Their can 



2 " Works," Vol. HI., p. 471. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



183 



not is their will not ; that is, it is the strength of their 
aversion to Christ, which is a moral impotence or ina- 
bility to believe in him, and the fault lies in the will." 3 

Fairly considered, I suppose that by this Dr. 
Watts meant nothing more than that sinners can, but 
will not repent without the influence of the Holy 
Spirit. If so, then those who will not so yield them- 
selves to the divine Spirit are lost, and constitute the 
non-elect whom God could not save : hence when Dr. 
Watts says : "If the great God, in a way of sover- 
eign mercy, gives some persons superior aids of grace 
to overcome this moral impotence, and conquer this 
aversion to God and goodness ; if he effectually leads, 
inclines, or persuades them by his Spirit to repent and 
believe in Christ, this does not at all hinder the others 
from exercising their natural powers of understanding 
and will, in believing and repenting. Nor can any- 
thing of their guilt and willful impenitence be imputed 
to the blessed God, who is Lord of his own favors and 
gives or withholds where he pleases, and who shall 
say to him what dost thou ? " 4 

One of two things must be true: viz., (1) This 
statement must be interpreted according to the Ar- 
minian principles of Dr. Watts ; or (2) If not. then 
in accordance with the well known Calvinistic theo- 
logy. If the former is accepted, then all that is meant 
is, that God gives superior aids of grace to overcome 
this moral impotence according as he foresees their 
spirit of free acceptance. If the latter, then not only 
is Dr. Watts self- contradictory, but the so-called ex- 
planation demands elucidation, namely, Why does 



3 p. 478. 

4 P- 479- 



184 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

God withhold the superior aids of grace from the non- 
elect ? is it because the divine Intention restricts 
them to the elect ? Then the divine Purpose never 
sincerely offered salvation to the non-elect, and, hence, 
as Dr. Watts says, "It is hard to conceive how the 
great Governor of the world can be sincere in inviting 
and requiring sinners who are on the brink of hell, to 
cast themselves upon an empty word of invitation, a 
mere shadow and appearance of support. ' ' 

Let us now consider the solution of Dr. Venema ; 
he says : " Common grace, of which even those who 
perish partake, consists in the offer of Christ made in 
the gospel, an offer which is intended by God to be 
made to all, and in which no one at least is excluded." 
Hence he maintains it is possible for all men to believe 
and be saved. 5 

There is a general predestination or ' ' purpose on 
the part of God to save those who believe — a purpose 
which had reference also to those who rejected it." 
If this be not so, ' ' then we can not hold that God se- 
riously wills that all men should receive the proposition 
made to them. If, however, he does so will, then it 
must have reference to all who read or hear it, and the 
purpose by which he has ordained a connection be- 
tweet faith and salvation must be general. We are 
aware, indeed, that there is a particular connection 
( between faith and salvation) which has reference only 
to the elect : yet this proposition is made to all with- 
out distinction. For it would be absurd to suppose 
that God says to all, Believe and ye shall be saved, 
and yet that he does not will that they should believe 
and be saved. . . . . The simplicity and the truth of 

5 " Institutes of Theology," pp, 298, 303. 



AND MAN'S MORAI, NATURE. 



185 



God forbid us ' ' believing ' ' that God is insincere ; this 
is evident from Matt, xxiii. 37, and Isa. v. 4. " If 
therefore we would not impugn the sincerity of God 
we must hold that there is a general decree by which 
he has purposed to save them that believe. " 6 Why 

are not the non-elect saved ? " Men abuse 

the common grace bestowed upon them. If they 
made a right improvement of that, they might enter- 
tain the hope of receiving special grace No 

one certainly will be condemned because he has been 
predestinated, but because he has neglected the method 
of salvation which God has disclosed ; and, therefore, 
it is unnecessary to be immoderately anxious in re- 
gard to this mysterious doctrine." 7 

That the reader may more readily grasp and com- 
prehend these affirmations, I will add the following 
resume : ( 1 ) All men are sincerely invited to be 
saved. (2) Faith is the one condition. (3) The non- 
elect are condemned because they abuse common grace. 
(4) By rejecting this view we impugn the divine sin- 
cerity. 

Superficially considered this position seems quite 
plausible, but a fair comparison of the above state- 
ments with others of Dr. Venema will disclose glaring 
inconsistencies and unequivocal contradictions. (1) 
Where is the Scriptural authority for Dr. Venema' s 
assertion that men are condemned because they abuse 
" common grace " ? Where is the passage in which 
men are told, Believe in, or rightly improve common 
grace, and you " may entertain the hope of receiving 
special grace ' ' ? Where are the texts proving that 



6 Pages 304, 305, 306. 

7 Pages 303, 295. 



1 86 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

there is one way by which the non-elect may entertain 
the hope of being saved, and a radically different way 
by which the elect are saved ? There are no such 
conditions in the Bible. The way is one — alike for 
all — " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt 
be saved." The Master before Dr. Venema. He 
says the Holy Spirit will condemn the world of sin, 
because of the abuse of common grace ? Oh no, but 
"because they believe not on me." If faith is the 
condition of salvation, then beyond all controversy, 
unbelief is the great sin for which men are condemned. 
Were it not for the support of a pet theory, our author 
would never have thought of this unscriptural dis- 
tinction of common and special grace : but (2) Dr. 
Venema himself does not really believe, nor teach 
that the generic reason why men are rejected is be- 
cause they abuse common grace. Generically their 
condemnation is a just act of sovereignty irrespective 
of anything which the}' have done. "If it be asked 
why God ordained them to destruction as reprobation 
is usually understood, we answer, because he foresaw 
that they would not believe." What ! a Calvinist 
basing the divine decrees upon foresight ? This is 
Arminianism. Wait dear reader and see. " If it be 
asked on what foundation this foreknowledge rests, we 
say on God's denying them particular grace." 8 That 
is, God has ordained the non-elect to eternal destruc- 
tion because he foresees, because he has determined 
that they shall not repent. This is the gist of the 
matter as considered by our author ; while believing 
in a certain order of the decrees, Dr. Venema affirms 
that " God by a single mental act comprehends the 



s Page 319. 



AND MAN'S MORAL, NATURE. 



I8 7 



whole." "The decree, therefore, is one." " The act 
of the decree is absolute. It is not uncertain or doubt- 
ful. It is not suspended on any condition on the part 
of man." "God determined what the creatures 
would do, and what their condition would be, who 
should believe, and who should not, and that his de- 
cree regarding them and everything relating to them 
was absolute. ' ' 9 

This is Calvin's doctrine little differently expressed. 
Doubtless there is a large scope for the non-elect when 
God has absolutely determined who shall believe : 
hence, (3) God has never really offered salvation to 
the non-elect. " . . . . God does not design by 
what is called a positive act, that all shall believe. In 
this case all would believe He wills only neg- 
atively, inasmuch as he does not will that any should 
not believe. " 1 A strange statement. The decrees 
are really one. From one standpoint they are abso- 
lute and positive : from another view they are only 
negative. But forgetting for a moment the self-con- 
tradiction, how is it possible to call God's determina- 
tion concerning the non-elect, in any sense, negative ? 
There are but two methods of procedure : God may 
directly influence the non-elect so that they will refuse 
to believe and repent. This was the view held by 
Calvin : and he w T axes warm as he contemplates 
the other view, calling it " a silly cavil." To the 
same effect speaks Dr. Emmons : " It is often thought 
and said that nothing more was necessary on God's 
part in order to fit Pharaoh for destruction, than barely 
to leave him to himself. But God knew that no ex- 



9 Pages 287, 289, 290. 
1 Page 301. 



1 88 CAL,VINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

ternal means and motives would be sufficient of them- 
selves to form his moral character. He determined, 
therefore, to operate on his heart itself and cause him 
to put forth certain evil exercises in the view of cer- 
tain external motives." 2 

The other method has been sufficiently indicated 
by the above condemnations. It is simply that of 
non-interference. The non-elect are in hopeless bond- 
age : their eternal destruction is certain, unless God 
gives them saving faith and repentance. This, how- 
ever, he has determined from all eternity not to do : 
hence they can not be saved. Let us hear the testi- 
mony of Dr. Shedd : ' ' The unconditional decree, in 
reference to the non-elect, according to Augustine, is 
one of pretention, or omission, merely. The repro- 
bating decree is not accompanied, as the electing 
decree is, with any direct divine efficiency to secure 
the result. And there is no need of any : for accord- 
ing to the Augustinian anthropology, there is no pos- 
sibility of self-recovery from a voluntary apostasy, 
and consequently the simple passing by and leaving 
of the sinful soul to itself renders its perdition as cer- 
tain as if it were brought about by a direct divine 
efficiency." 3 

But when God passes by the non-elect, has he not 
determined to do so ? Yes, verily, from all eternity. 
But is not a determination not to save, a positive act 
of the divine will ? So it would . and does seem to all 
but a few so-called " mild Calvinists." 

There is something more which I am sure will in- 
terest the reader. On one page we are informed that 



2 "Works." Vol. II., p. 392. 

3 " Hist, of Christ. Doc ' Vol. II., pp. 70, 72. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 1 89 

God has a general decree or purpose, — purpose please 
observe, — " to save those who believe, a purpose which 
had reference to those who rejected it." Yes, this 
purpose is so real that our author insists that ' ' God 
seriously wills that all men should receive the propo- 
sition made to them ' ' : that is, should receive salvation. 
But in a few moments we are gravely told that ' ' God 
does not design by what is called a positive act that 
all shall believe." Not at all : simply that God has 
not willed " that any should not believe." We have 
now obtained a new synonym for " seriously wills." 
It means a "negative act of the will." God seriously 
wills that all should receive salvation, but God does 
not design that all shall believe : hence, says our con- 
sistent theologian, "God has purposed by a positive 
act of his will, not only to condemn unbelievers, but 
also to withhold from some sufficient grace, on which 
withholding, as we shall see, when we come to treat 
of the doctrine of reprobation, depends the final ruin 
of the impenitent." 4 

This is good Calvinism. I rejoice to see it : here 
we are told that the final ruin of the non-elect depends 
upon the withholding of sufficient grace, which with- 
holding God has purposed by a positive act of his 
will : yet he seriously wills that all should believe and 
be saved. 

(4) Let us now see how Dr. Venema justifies God 
from the charge of partiality, and injustice : "In con- 
ferring grace he may act according to his own pleasure, 
for none can lay claim to what he bestows. In this 
matter he acts as supreme Lord, who may do what he 
will with his own, and not as a Judge who has a regard 



4 Pages 277, 278. 



I go CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

to the merit or demerit oi those with whom he has to 
do. In the latter case there would be some ground 
for the charge of partiality and injustice ; but in the 
former there is none." 5 The following points are 
worthy of special notice : (a) If we consider God as a 
Judge, who has regard to the merit or the demerit of 
those with whom he has to do, there is some ground 
for the charge of partiality and injustice. (b) To 
escape this charge, Dr. Venema tell us that we must 
consider God as the supreme Lord, who may do what 
he will with his own. To this I reply that it is im- 
possible to separate the character of God into parts, 
and say a certain act is right because it is done by 
him as supreme Lord. Whatever he does, is done 
by the divine Being as such. No man, I care not 
what his official position ma}' be, has any right to 
commit a wrong, and then say — as an excuse for that 
wrong — 1 ' I did it as a King, or an Emperor, or as the 
President." An outraged public opinion would very 
soon bring such an offender to his senses, and the 
condemnation would be the heavier because of the 
shameless audacity of the culprit. The same general 
law rules in the sphere of ethics divine as well as 
human. Without entering into an examination of the 
vastly important question — reserved for another chapter 
— Is anything right because God does it ? let it suffice 
for the present to say that the distinction of our author 
is wholly without foundation, and manifestly absurd. 

But again ; (V) In the Scriptures God is represented 
as a Judge who does, and is to try, by Jesus Christ, the 
actions and hearts of all men. Abraham's exclama- 
tion, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right ? " 



5 Page 229. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. I9I 

(Gen. xviii. 25) unmistakably shows the native con- 
viction of the race that God is a judge as well as a 
Father : hence as a fact, God through his well-beloved 
Son is continually judging "of the thoughts and 
intents of the heart" (Heb. iv. 12). "For the Son 
of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his 
angels and then he shall reward every man according 
to his works" (Matt. xvi. 24). He who could say 
to the Israelites, ' ' Is not my way equal ' ' is infinitely 
above such petty subterfuges as adopted by Dr. 
Venema. 

But lastly, (d) Our author himself, confesses that 
God generally adheres to the office of Judge : he says 
it is right in God to withhold special grace from those 
who abuse common grace ' ' because he renders to 

every man according to his works We can 

not now enter upon an explanation of this. But we 
know generally that God will in his dealings strictly 
adhere to this rule." 6 

If God strictly adheres to the rule of dealing with 
men according to their works, then he certainly has 
' ' a regard to the merit or demerit of those with whom 
he has to do " : hence God does certainly act as a 
Judge, and consequently the Calvinistic doctrine under 
consideration is open to the charge that God is partial 
and unjust, Dr. Venema 's words being the criterion. 

In conclusion, it only remains to notice the tes- 
timony of Dr. Venema' s translator, Rev. Alexander 
W. Brown. "After the lengthy and ingenious dis- 
cussion by the author on the subject of predestination, 
we confess we feel ourselves just where we were. In 
attempting to reconcile the doctrine of election with 



6 p. 30I. 



192 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

the universality of the gospel offer, and with the ex- 
pressed unwillingness of God that men should perish, 
he has only shifted the difficulty ; he has not removed 
it." 7 

In the opinion of Mr. Brown, the doctrine of abso- 
lute, predestination must be believed even if it can not 
be reconciled with the freeness of the gospel offer. 8 

Let us now turn our attention to the vindication 
adduced by Dr. A. A. Hodge. "In the general offers 
of the gospel God exhibits a salvation sufficient for 
and exactly adapted to all, and sincerely offered to 
every one without exception, and he unfolds all the 
motives of duty, hope, fear, etc., which ought to in- 
duce every one to accept it, solemnly promising that 
whoever comes, in no wise shall be cast out. The 
gospel is for all, election is a special grace in addition 
to that offer. The non-elect may come if they will. 
The elect will come ; " again. "A salvation all-suffi- 
cient and exactly adapted to his necessities is honestly 
offered to every man to whom the gospel comes, and 
in every case it is his, if he believes ; and in no case 
does anything prevent his believing other than his own 
evil disposition." 

Once more Dr. Hodge says, " A bona fide offer of 
the gospel, therefore, is to be made to all men. 1st. Be- 
cause the satisfaction rendered to the law is sufficient 
for all men. 2d. Because it is exactly adapted to the 
redemption of all. 3d. Because God designs that 
whosoever exercises faith in Christ shall be saved by 
him. The design of Christ's death being to secure 
the salvation of his own people, incidentally to the 



7 p. 334, note. 

8 Ibid. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



193 



accomplishment of that end, it comprehends the offer 
of that salvation freely and honestly to all men on the 
condition of their faith. No man is lost for the want 
of an atonement, or because there is any barrier in the 
way of his salvation than his own most free and 
wicked will." 9 

I doubt not the reader is now in possession of such 
facts as will enable him to judge of the Scriptural 
character of Dr. Hodge's language. Omitting one 
clause, these quotations seem to express the very ideas 
of the Bible and for which I am contending, namely, 

(1) A bona fide offer of salvation is made to all men. 

(2) On the condition that the individual soul will 
believe in the Saviour. (3) There is no barrier in the 
way of any man's salvation, except his own free and 
wicked will. These three points are identical with 
those of Dr. Hodge, and yet my next affirmation — 
which is simply a legitimate, and necessary deduction 
from the foregoing — will necessitate our separation; 
namely, God saves all who can be saved. Like all 
Calvinists, Dr. Hodge will instantly reply, This de- 
prives God of his sovereignty, and conditions the 
decrees on the acts of the creatures. 

The truth is, Dr. Hodge does not mean what his 
language fairly implies, what the average reader im- 
agines such words must signify. This charge of am- 
biguity I shall now attempt to substantiate. Let the 
reader carefully notice (1) That Dr. Hodge asserts that 
there is no barrier in the way of any man's salvation, 
except " his own most free and wicked will." If this 
be true, then every man has a fair chance to be saved. 
To say of a young man that there is no barrier in the 



9 " Outlines of Theology," pp. 182, 317, 316. 



194 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

way of his obtaining a collegiate education, except his 
own most free and lazy will, would be generally and 
properly understood as signifying that he had a good 
opportunity for securing a classical education. I do 
not suppose that the underlying truth of the assertion 
will be fundamentally changed when predicated of 
salvation, and yet, Dr. Hodge will now deny that all 
men have a full opportunity of being saved through 
Christ. Here are his very words : ' ' There is a lurk- 
ing feeling among many that somehow God owes to 
all men at least a full opportunity of being saved 
through Christ. If so, there was no grace in Christ's 
dying. 'I reject,' says Wesley, 'the assertion that 
God might justly have passed by me and all men, as a 
bold, precarious assertion utterly unsupported by holy 
Scripture.' Then we say, of course the gospel was of 
debt, not of grace." 1 

Denying that all men have a full opportunity of 
being saved through Christ, Dr. Hodge flatly contra- 
dicts his former assertion that no man is lost 

because there is any barrier in the way of his salvation 
than his own most free and wicked will. ' ' 

(2) The so-called condition of salvation by which 
Dr. Hodge seeks to make it appear that the non-elect 
may be saved— if they will only believe — is no condi- 
tion. Like many other Calvinists, Dr. Hodge expati- 
ates upon the possibilities of the non-elect being saved ; 
he distinctly says, "The non-elect may come if they 
will ; " he says God ' ' unfolds all the motives of duty, 
hope, fear, etc., which ought to induce everyone to 
accept it." "A salvation all-sufficient and exactly 



1 p. 182. Such a false theology is sure to increase the ranks of 
infidelity. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURK. 



195 



adapted to his necessities is honestly offered to every 
man to whom the gospel comes, and in every case it is 
his if he believes. ' ' 

Thus Dr. Hodge is constantly seeking to make the 
impression that the non-elect may believe, and conse- 
quently if they do not, it is their own fault. Such is 
not the fact however. The truth is, the non-elect can 
not possibly exercise faith and repentance, and there- 
fore, can not be saved. They begin life with their wills 
inclined to sin, they are so depraved that without a 
miraculous change wrought in them by God, they can 
only and forever become worse, and consequently it is 
rather sarcastic in Dr. Hodge to write so gravely that 
the non-elect shall be saved if they will only believe. 
Does the reader desire the proof of this ? It is at hand, 
and from the pen of Dr. Hodge. ' ' The depraved will 
of man can not originate holy affections and volitions 
because the presence of a positively holy principle is 
necessary to constitute them holy. . . . There remains 
no recuperative element in the soul. Man can only 
and forever become worse without a miraculous recre- 
ation. . . . But he has lost all ability to obey the law 
of God, because his evil heart is not subject to that 

law, neither can he change it But the moral 

state of these faculties is such, because of the perverted 
disposition of their hearts, that they are utterly unable 
either to will or to do what the law requires. This 
inability is ' natural ' since it is innate and constitu- 
tional. It is ' moral ' since it does not consist either 
in disease, or in any physical defect in the soul > nor 
merely in the inordinate action of the bodily affections, 
but in the corrupt character of the governing disposi- 
tions of the heart. This inability is total, and as far 



1 96 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

as human strength goes, irremedial. . . .That repent- 
ance, faith, trust, hope, love, etc., are purely and 
simply the sinner's own acts ; but as such, are possible 
to him only in virtue of the change wrought in the 
moral condition of his faculties by the recreative power 
of God." 2 

These extracts are sufficient to show the beautiful 
consistency of Dr. Hodge. The non-elect are blame- 
worthy for not accepting Jesus Christ, and yet they 
can not exercise faith, hope, love and repentance until 
the change is wrought by the power of God. And 
this is the grand ' ' condition ' ' by which the non-elect 
are to be saved. No wonder that Luther considered 
the many declarations in which God exhorts man to 
keep his commandments, as ironical, " as if a father 
were to say to his child, ' Come,' while he knows that 
he can not come." 

(3) Why does God refuse to give the non-elect a 
full opportunity to be saved ? Inasmuch as saving 
faith is bestowed upon the elect — thus putting the 
condition of salvation within their reach — why does 
God withhold it from the non-elect ? Why should he 
confer it upon one class, and not upon the other ? To 
say that it is because of the rejection of the Saviour, is 
to beg the very question in dispute. To say that a 
blind man who has never seen the sun is worthy of 
condemnation because he will not open his eyes and 
look at the glorious orb, may be consistent with Cal- 
vinism, but is contrary to the universal sense of justice. 
Waiving all questions relative to the final condemna- 
tion of the non-elect, why should God refuse them 1 ' a 
full opportunity " to be saved ? Manifestly there is no 



2 Pages 237,252, 266, 267, 336. 



and man's moral, nature. 



197 



reason, for prior to the bestowment of saving faith, the 
elect are no better than the non-elect. Hence there is 
no reason why the non-elect do not have ' ' a full oppor- 
tunity of being saved " beyond the good pleasure of 
God. Says Dr. Hodge " In respect to its negative ele- 
ment, reprobation is simply sovereign, since those 
passed over were no worse than those elected, and the 
simple reason both for the choosing and for the passing 
over was the sovereign good pleasure of God." 3 

This is another gem in the theology of Dr. Hodge. 
All men have not "a full opportunity of being saved " 
simply because of the good pleasure of God— the non- 
elect are worthy of condemnation for rejecting " such 
a Saviour," when at the same time God withholds 
from them the power by which they may accept the 
salvation which "is exactly adapted to the redemption 
of all." 

(4) The offer of salvation to the non-elect is a stu- 
pendous farce. Dr. Hodge earnestly contends for the sin- 
cerity of the gospel offer to the non-elect. I,et the 
reader turn back a few pages, and such expressions as 
these will constantly meet the eye. ' ' In the general 
offers of the gospel God exhibits a salvation sufficient 
for and exactly adapted to all, and sincerely offered to 
every one without exception." "A salvation all-suf- 
ficient and exactly adapted to his necessities is hon- 
estly offered to every man." u A bona fide offer of the 
gospel, therefore, is to be made to all men." Speak- 
ing of the design of Christ's death, he says, " It com- 
prehends the offer of salvation freely and honestly to 
all men on the condition of their faith." 

3 Page 183. 



I98 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

I do not know what peculiar meaning Dr. Hodge 
attributes to such words as " sincere," " honest," and 
1 * bona fide, ' ' but I am sure that the usual signification 
has no place in the above quotations, because (a) If 
God sincerely wished the salvation of the non-elect, 
he would give them at least " a full opportune of 
being saved. " (jb) He would also exert his power in 
their behalf, for Dr. Hodge informs us "it rests only 
with God himself to save all, man}-, few, or none." 
(c) God can not be very sincere in offering salvation 
to all on the condition of faith, for, says Dr. Hodge, 
( 1 God never has promised to enable every man to be- 
lieve." Not having promised to give every man "a 
full opportunity of being saved" and knowing that 
without this ' ' full opportunity ' ' the non-elect can not 
possibly be saved. I doubt not the gospel offer is ex- 
tremely sincere and honest on the part of him who 
has declared, " Let the wicked forsake his way, and 
the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return 
unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him ; and 
to our God, for he will abundantly pardon " (Isa. lv. 
7). But (d) The gospel offers can not be sincere, for 
God has eternally purposed that the non-elect shall 
not be saved. Says Dr. Hodge, ' ' The design of God 
must have been determined by his motive. If his mo- 
tive was peculiar love to his own people then his de- 
sign must have been to secure their salvation, and not 
that of all men. As proved from Scripture .... 
God, in his eternal decree, elected his own people to 
everlasting life, determining to leave all others to the 
just consequences of their own sins. Consequently 
he gave his Son to die for these. He could not con- 
sistently give his Son to die for the purpose of saving 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURK. 



199 



the rest He designed to save those whom he 

does save." 4 

Here we reach the conclusion of the whole matter. 
The doctrine of a Limited Atonement now stands out 
in all its beauty and consistency. While God never 
designed to save the non-elect, while he has eternally 
decreed to leave them without ' ' a full opportunity of 
being saved," while Jesus Christ did not die for the 
purpose of saving them, yet at the same time Dr. 
Hodge would have us believe that these most tantaliz- 
ing offers of salvation — without a Saviour— are " sin- 
cere," " honest," "bona fide." 

One is at a loss to know which deserves the more 
pity, the credulity of Dr. Hodge in supposing that his 
fallacies would be accepted for truth, or his utter disre- 
gard for the legitimate meaning of language. 

An examination of the solution given by Dr. Nehe- 
miah Adams will conclude this section: " But we 
will meet the difficulty in the most explicit manner ; 
as to any injustice toward those who are not made 
willing to repent let us suppose the following case : 
A teacher is remonstrating with some pupils in cir- 
cumstances where remonstrance seems the only suit- 
able means of influencing them. Everything is said 
which a reasonable being would think necessary to 
effect the purpose, or to make the resistance inexcusa- 
ble. All is vain. There is an unanimous rejection of 
the teacher's endeavors. In a private way he calls 
one and another to him, one by one, and plies him 
with further considerations, appeals to things in his 
private history and circumstances, and he gains the 
submission of a number. This is followed by some 



4 Pages 313, 314. 



200 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

great advantage which makes these few the objects of 
envy. Now let us imagine the obstinate and persever- 
ing part of the company drawing near to upbraid the 
teacher, saying, ' Had you employed further influences 
with us, we too, might have yielded. On you be the 
blame of our loss.' They would be justly scorned for 
their impertinence. The teacher did all for them 
which, as reasonable beings, they could properly ask 
or expect. He sincerely desired the submission of all. 
It might have been as easy for him to have subdued 
them all, one by one, as to have secured the assent of 
the few. He exercised sovereignty election in what 
he did. He did not hate any, he did not prefer their 
continual rebellion, though he chose not to interpose 
with them all, but to leave some under the influences 
of truth, reason and their consciences. True, he saw 
that no one would turn without some special act on 
his part." 5 

I have quoted at some length in order that the 
reader might have the precise language of Dr. Adams. 
It is less involved, than that of Dr. Venema, and pos- 
sibly may be more consistent. L,et us see. Dr. Adams 
has chosen the analogical method : As I said concern- 
ing the argument of President Dabney, so I remark 
here that all I can fairly ask of Dr. Adams is, that his 
analogy be true in its primary application. If this be 
so, then I readily grant his position has some degree 
of plausibility. But if this be not so, if the analogy 
is radically at fault in that it does not afford a just com- 
parison between the respective parties, then that which 
is built upon it must be considered null and void. 
That such is the actual case I now propose to demon- 
s'' Evenings with the Doctrines," pp. 253, 254. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE- 201 

strate ; viz., (i) It is assumed that the scholars could 
have obeyed the teacher ; otherwise they were not 
guilty. But the nou- elect have no such power. 
Speaking of election, Dr. Adams says, "God has re- 
solved that he will rescue a part of mankind from per- 
dition by persuading and enabling them to do their 
duty." 6 If God enables the elect to do their duty, 
then before that aid was given they could not have 
done their duty, in which position the non-elect not 
only are, but there they forever remain. Dr. Adams 
distinctly teaches that faith is a gift of God withheld 
from the non-elect, and therefore all remarks concern- 
ing them which are based upon the ability of the schol- 
ars are manifestly inadequate : 7 hence (2 ) The analogy 
is defective in that it assumes that God, like the teacher, 
has said and done everything ' ' which a reasonable 
being would think necessary to effect the purpose or to 
make the resistance inexcusable." This may be true 
concerning the scholars : if it is, then as I have said, 
it is based on the ability of the scholars to yield. 
Granting this, the scholars were doubly guilty because 
they not only refused to do that which they knew was 
right, but they also shut out the additional light af- 
forded by the counsels of their teacher. But this 
utterly fails when applied to the non-elect. Having 
no power to believe, it is idle talk to say God says 
everything "which a reasonable being would think 
necessary to effect the purpose, or to make the resist- 
ance inexcusable." God requires faith of them : but 
faith is impossible unless conferred by the Spirit. As 
a reasonable Being God knows this, and therefore it is 



6 p. 246. 

7 See p. 257. 



202 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

not true that ' ' everything is said which a reasonable 
being would think necessary." He absolutely knows 
that nothing will suffice ' 'to effect the purpose ' ' save the 
gift of faith, which for certain reasons has been withheld. 

( 3) One is at a loss to understand why the teacher 
did not secure the obedience of all. It was not 
because he could not, for Dr. Adams has informed 
us that "it might have been as easy for him to have 
subdued them all, one by one, as to have secured the 
assent of the few." Certainly, if the obedience of one 
or more was intrinsically good, I fail to see why that 
good would have been decreased, if the obedience of 
all had been secured. Surely it would not have hurt 
any one ; and, judging from my limited knowledge of 
schools, I should think that both teachers and scholars 
would have been in a position to have accomplished 
more and better work. 

Was it not because the teacher was better pleased 
to have some of the scholars continue in disobedience, 
and therefore did not desire to have all yield to his 
very reasonable arguments ? I beg the reader to dis- 
miss the thought at once. It must not be entertained. 
Such a suggestion is a libel on the character of this 
very humane teacher. Besides, has not Dr. Adams 
distinctly told us that this exceptionally benevolent 
teacher "sincerely desired the submission of all;" that 
"he did not hate any, he did not prefer their contin- 
ual rebellion." Now Webster defines the word "sin- 
cere ' ' as follows : 1 ' Being in reality what it appears 
to be ; having a character which corresponds with the 
appearance ; not simulated or falsely assumed ; true ; 
real." Hence if Dr. Adams has correctly defined the 
character of this teacher we are sure that he really 



AND MAN'S MORAIv NATURE. 203 

desired to secure the obedience of all his scholars. 
This being so, then, while I confess that this teacher 
is the strangest of all human beings — for whoever saw 
a person, having full power to confer an inestimable 
blessing upon others, and sincerely desiring the same, 
refusing to exercise that power ? I say while this 
teacher's conduct is profoundly inexplicable, of one 
thing I am certain, viz., that he had not secretly de- 
termined that the finally obstinate scholars should not 
yield, in any circumstances, to his so-called reasonable 
arguments: for upon this supposition his,, character 
would not correspond with the appearance," which 
correspondence, according to Webster, is necessary to 
be sincere. We are now in a position to see the radi- 
cal defect of Dr. Adam's analogy : for 

(4) God, unlike the teacher, has positively deter- 
mined that the non-elect shall not be saved. Dr. 
Adams, like many others whose views we have consid- 
ered, is guilty of unequivocal self-contradictions. Of 
the non-elect he says, " No injustice is done to those 
w 7 ho are left : salvation is consistently offered to them, 
and their state is no worse than though all like them 
had perished." 8 But if salvation is offered to all, 
then the offer is intimately related to the divine Will 
and Purpose. It is a bona fide offer, or it is nothing. 
If the former, then it is simply impossible that God 
should have determined from eternity, irrespective of 
the divine foresight of men's rejection, that the non- 
elect should not be saved. But this is precisely what 
God has done if we accept the statements of Dr. 
Adams: for, in the first place, God has never resolved to 
save all. " God has resolved that he will rescue a part 

8 p. 246. 



204 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

of mankind from perdition by persuading and enabling 
them to do their duty." In the second place, "Not 
one more, not one less will be saved than God pur- 
posed. ' ' Again, ' ' God purposed from all eternity to do 
that which he has actually done and is to do." 9 
Equally fallacious is our author's remark that "the 
exercise of God's free and sovereign grace in the con- 
version and salvation of a part of mankind is the 
only alternative to the endless sin and misery of the 
whole." 1 

What extreme folly ! As though the whole were 
less than a part. No such alternative exists save in 
the perplexed mind of Dr. Adams : for according to 
his own analogy ' 1 it might have been as easy for him 
to have subdued them all, one by one, as to have 
secured the assent of the few. ' ' Nor do I imagine 
that this so-called reconciliation was very highly re- 
garded by its author ; for, after this wonderful analogy 
has been given, he remarks, " This Scriptural way of 
treating divine decrees and free agency is surely safe, 
namely, to believe them both, and to leave out of view 
all questions as to their consistency." 2 One can not 
but wonder why Dr. Adams refused to follow his 
excellent advice. 

9 p. 257. 

1 p. 244. 

2 p- 257. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



205 



SECTION III. 

Calvinism Teaches that the Non-Elect are Rejected and 
Condemned Irrespective of their Wicked Deeds or 
Character. 

On this subject the Bible is very explicit. God is 
always represented as dealing justly with his subjects. 
If he sends punishments upon his people, it is because 
they have departed from his commands. If a soul 
is rejected, temporarily or eternally, it is because of 
the great sin of rejecting him from whom all blessings 
flow. A few from the many passages of the Old 
Testament will suffice to illustrate the law of equity 
by which the divine Will is guided. The curse was 
pronounced upon our first parents because they had 
disobeyed the commandment, Thou shalt not eat of 
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. ii. 
17; iii. 16, 17). God's blessings for his chosen people 
are conditioned upon their diligently hearkening to, 
and doing that which is right in his sight (Exodus 
xv. 26). " I call heaven and earth to record this day 
against you, that I have set before you life and death, 
blessing and cursing ; therefore choose life, that both 
thou and thy seed may live " (Deut. xxx. 19). Saul's 
temporary and eternal rejection by God was based 
upon his rejection of the Lord's word. " And Samuel 
said unto Saul, I will not return with thee : for thou 
hast rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath 
rejected thee from being King over Israel" (1. Sam. 
xv. 26). See also 11. Sam. vii. 15. The prolonged 
drought in the reign of Ahab w r as because of the many 
heinous sins of monarch and people. " And it came 
to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto 



206 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel? And he 
answered, I have not troubled Israel ; but thou and 
thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the com- 
mandments of the Lord, and hast followed Baalim " 
(i, Kings xviii. 17, 18). " If ye be willing and obe- 
dient, ye shall eat the good of the land. But if ye 
refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword, 
for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it " (Isa. i. 19, 
20). The words of Jeremiah to his angry country- 
men are replete with good common sense and Bible 
sincerity. " Therefore now amend your ways, and 
your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your 
God : and the Lord will repent him of the evil that 
he hath pronounced against 3-ou " (xxvi. 13). In be- 
half of him whose ways are equal, Ezekiel says : 
" Therefore I will judge } T ou, O house of Israel, every 
one according to his ways, saith the Lord God. Re- 
pent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions, 
so iniquity shall not be your ruin " (xviii. 30). 

The same law of equity is even more clearly re- 
vealed in the New Testament. 1 ' For if ye forgive 
men their trespasses, } T our heavenly Father will also 
forgive you. But if ye forgive not men their tres- 
passes, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your 
trespasses " (Matt. vi. 14, 15). "Woe unto thee, Cho- 
razin ! woe unto thee, Bethsaida ! for if the mighty 
works which were done in you had been done in Tyre 
and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in 
sackcloth and ashes" (Matt. xi. 21). The fearful 
calamities which should surely overtake Jerusalem 
were pronounced against her because of the obstinate 
rejection of him whose tears were the sincere expres- 
sion of a mighty effort to save (Matt, xxiii. 37 ; Luke 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 207 

xix. 41-45). " He that believeth on him is not con- 
demned ; but he that believeth not is condemned 
already, because he hath not believed in the name 
of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the 
condemnation, that light is come into the world, and 
men loved darkness rather than light, because their 
deeds were evil " (John iii. 18, 19). The extreme 
wickedness of heathenism is the result —not of God 
forsaking man, but man's forsaking God. " For this 
cause God gave them up unto vile affections : for even 
their women did change the natural use into that 
which is against nature : And likewise also the men, 
leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their 
lust one toward another ; men with men working that 
which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that 
recompense of their error which was meet. And even 
as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, 
God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those 
things which are not convenient" (Rom. i. 26, 28). 
Speaking of God, Paul says, ' ' Who will render to 
every man according to his deeds" (ii. 6). "So then 
every one of us shall give account of himself to God ' ' 
(xiv. 12). " For we must all appear before the judg- 
ment seat of Christ ; that every one may receive the 
things done in his body, according to that he hath 
done, whether it be good or bad" (11. Cor. v. 10). 
"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before 
God ; and the books were opened : and another book 
was opened, which is the book of life ; and the dead 
were judged out of those things which were written in 
the books, according to their works. And the sea 
gave up the dead which were in it ; and death and 
hell delivered up the dead which were in them, and 



208 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

they were judged every man according to their 
works" (Rev. xx. 12, 13). "And behold, I come 
quickly ; and my reward is with me, to give every 
man according as his work shall be " (xxii. 12). 

I shall now attempt to prove that Calvinism une- 
quivocally contradicts the Bible on this subject : that 
it assigns as the generic reason for the rejection and 
condemnation of the non-elect the sovereign will of 
God. I say "generic reason"; for while there is a 
class of Calvinistic writers who boldly and consist- 
ently maintain this doctrine, there is another class 
who endeavor to escape the dilemma by insisting that 
Calvinism and the Scriptures agree in teaching that 
men are condemned for their sins. These we shall 
consider in due time. 

Calvin says, " All are not created on equal terms, 
but some are foreordained to eternal life, others to 
eternal damnation ; and accordingly, as each has been 
created for one or other of these ends, we say that he 
has been predestinated to life or to death. " 3 " Esau 
and Jacob are brothers, begotten of the same parents, 
within the same womb, not yet born. In them, all 
things are equal, and yet the judgment of God with 
regard to them is different. He adopts the one and 
rejects the other." 4 Hence, in seeking for the cause 
of the non-elect being rejected, we must not go beyond 
the divine Will. "Therefore, if we can not assign 
any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but 
just that it so pleases him, neither can we have any 
reason for his reprobating others but his will. When 
God is said to visit in mercy or harden whom he will, 



3 " Inst." B. III., ch. XXI., Sec. 5. 

4 B. III., Ch. XXII., Sec. 5. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



209 



men are reminded that they are not to seek for any 
cause beyond his will." 5 

The following is from Rev. Richard Crakanthorp. 
He first refutes the doctrine that men are elected if 
they will embrace the grace of God : then he con- 
demns the view "that there is none rejected of God 
till by their own contempt themselves do first reject 
God and by their willful obstinac}^ refuse his grace 
which is offered unto them": then he adds, "How 
evidently, do these men oppugn the Scriptures of 
God ! For if election and rejection depend on the 
actions of men after they be born, how can it be true, 
which the Apostle teacheth, that we are elected before 
the foundation of the world ? " 6 

If election and rejection do not depend on the ac- 
tions of men after they are born, they certainly do not 
depend on actions before they are born, and hence they 
are irrespective of men's actions. Of Jacob and Esau, 
Matthew Henry says, \ ' The difference was made 
between them by the divine counsel before they were 
born, or had done any evil. Both lay struggling 
alike in the mother's womb when it was said, The 
elder shall serve the younger : without respect to 
good or bad works done or foreseen." 7 

Dr. Venema taught that ' ' The decree of withhold- 
ing peculiar grace is according to God's good pleas- 
ure, without any reference to the character of the 

individual." 8 
* 

In a work entitled ' ' A Defense of Some of the 
Important Doctrines of the Gospel, ' ' Rev. John Har- 

5 Ibid, Sec. n. 

6 " Sermon," pp. 10, n. 

7 Scott's Comprehensive Comt. 

8 Inst. p. 320. 



2IO CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

rison says, 'But it may be said that the reason of 
God's withholding the means of grace from some, may 
be their obstinacy and unworthiness ; the abuse of 
the light they had, and a foresight that they would 
abuse clearer light, if they had it. To this I answer, 
all men are naturally obstinate and unworthy ; and if 
God deals with men according to their obstinacy and 
unworthiness, not only some men, but even all men, 

should be excluded from the means of grace 

It is best therefore to rest in that reason of this pro- 
cedure assigned by Christ, God's sovereign will of 
pleasure (Matt. xi. 25, 26)." 9 

Dr. Bennett Tyler says, " One is taken and another 
left ; and the reason why one is taken in preference to 
another lies beyond our view and is known only to 
God." 1 

The following from Dr. Chalmers is characteris- 
tically bold : ' ' The great bulk even of ©ur orthodox 
theologians would rather view and express the mat- 
ter in this way, that those who are not saved are 
simply left to their own natural inheritance as the 
children of wrath, and are therefore let alone. I. Peter, 
ii. 8, ' Them which stumble at the word, being diso- 
bedient, whereunto also they were appointed.' 
This, too, the adversaries, and also the modifiers of 
our doctrine, would try to get the better of, by restrict- 
ing the appointment to the consequences of disobedi- 
ence, viewing the disobedience itself as the act "solely 
of the creature. Jude 4, ' For there are certain 
men crept in unawares, who were before of old or- 
dained to this condemnation, ungodly men,' etc. And 



9 p- 173. 

1 " lectures on Theology." p. 356. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



211 



so of this passage, too, both they who deny, and they 
who blink our doctrine in the form of reprobation, 
will tell us that 'these ungodly were of old ordained 
not to their ungodliness, but, being ungodly, they were 
ordained to the condemnation that follows it. I shall 
give one testimony more, and that perhaps the most 
difficult of all to be disposed of by those who, in the 
handling of this argument, would soften the represen- 
tations of Scripture down to the standard of their own 
conceptions and their own taste : Rom. ix. 18, 
' Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have 
mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.' This, looked 
to in connection with the narrative of God hardening 
the heart of Pharaoh, does seem to imply a counter- 
part operation to that of the grace which carries into 
effect the decree of a favorable predestination. Those 
whom God hath ordained to eternal life, he also or- 
dains to the character that is meet for it ; and accom- 
plishes this ordination by the work of the Spirit, who 
takes the heart of stone out of those whom God hath 
chosen to everlasting blessedness, and gives them a 
heart of flesh. And in contrast with this, does it not 
appear, as if upon those who are the objects of an ad- 
verse predestination, he puts forth a contrary opera- 
tion — not softening, but hardening ? And as if there 
were as much of positive efficiency on the part of God 
in conducting the one operation as the other, it is 
likened to the respective operations of the potter over 
the clay which he moulds at will into vessels of any 
use or form that pleases him." 2 

Dr. J. B. Mozley in refuting Archbishop Whace- 
ly's interpretation of the potter's power over the 

2 "Institutes." Vol. II., pp. 396, 397. 



212 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

clay, says, " Now, it is true that a potter never makes 
a vessel for destruction ; but some vessels are certainly 
in this passage spoken of as 'fitted to destruction,' 
others as ' prepared unto glory ' ; of which destruc- 
tion and glory the cause is plainly put further back 
than their own personal conduct, viz., in a certain 
divine love and wrath, before either side had done any 
actual good or evil. ' ' 3 

Dr. John Woodbridge says, " In his choice of men 
to the adoption of sons, the peculiar reasons for his 
preference are always concealed." 4 

''If it be acknowledged that there is any differ- 
ence between the character and ultimate fate of a 
good and a bad man, the intellect is logically led, step 
by step, to contemplate the will of the Creator as the 
cause of this difference." 5 

Section iv. 

The Doctrine Denied, a?id yet Granted by some Cal- 
vinists. 

In the previous sections of this chapter we have 
been regaled by some Calvinistic inconsistencies. I 
now propose to give the reader another opportunity of 
witnessing these theological legerdemains. 

' ' Men will be dealt with according to their charac- 
ters at the end of life," says Dr. Albert Barnes ; again, 
commenting on Rom. ii. 6, he says, " That is, as he 
deserves ; or God will be just and will treat every man 
as he ought to be treated ; or according to his char- 



3 "Bib. Sacra," 1879, p. 206. 

4 "Nat. Preacher." Vol. II., p. 132. 

5 " I,ife of St Pau!." Conybeare and Howson. Vol. II., p. 178. 



AND MAN'S MORAI, NATURE. 



213 



acter. It is not true that God will treat men accord- 
gin to their external conduct ; but the whole language 
of the Bible implies that he will judge men according 
to the whole of their conduct, including their thoughts 
and principles and motives, i.e., as they deserve;" 
again, on i. 28, "It does not mean that they were 
reprobate by any arbitrary decree, but that as a con- 
sequence of their headstrong passions, their determin- 
ation to forget him, he left them to a state of mind 
which was evil and which he could not approve ; " on 
ix. 33, he says, " Men still are offended at the cross 
of Christ. They contemn and despise him. He is 
to them as a root out of a dry ground, and they reject 
him and fall into ruin. This is the cause why sinners 
perish, and this only." 

In these remarks we are told that men are not rep- 
robated by any arbitrary decree : that God treats, and 
will treat every one at the end of the world according 
to their motives, or their characters : that the cause, 
yea the only cause why sinners perish, is their rejection 
of Christ. Very good : this is the principle of right 
and according to the spirit and letter of Scripture. 
Now let the reader compare the above with the follow- 
ing, on Rom. ix. 11, "It was not because they had 
formed a character, and manifested qualities which 
made this distinction proper. It was laid back of any 
such character, and therefore had its origin in the plan 
or purpose of God." It is simply puerile to say that 
both of these statements are to be accepted. If an 
affirmation means the same as a negation, let us throw 
away all reasoning and become Nescients. If we 
accept the former statements, we reject Calvinism ; if 
the latter, what shall we do with the Bible ? 



214 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

Dr. Robt. J. Breckenridge says, "That portion of 
the human race that will be finally lost we know per- 
fectly, from.the Scriptures, will be condemned for their 
sins and will, in their own judgment, and the judg- 
ment of men and angels, as well as in the judgment of 
God himself, richly deserve their condemnation : nor 
is it possible to imagine that they would be condemned 
under any other circumstances. As I have already 
shown, even the elect are chosen of God from eternity, 
not in contemplation of them as pure and deserving 
God's love, but in contemplation of them as polluted, 
and so as needing the infinite sacrifice of Christ, and 
the infinite work of the Holy Ghost. ... It is, there- 
fore, impious and absurd to say that God passes by 
and reprobates those who will perish in the contempla- 
tion of their being pure: they were always polluted 
from the first moment of their existence : were con- 
templated as such from eternity : were passed by and 
reprobated being such : will be condemned as such to 
all eternity." This is sufficiently explicit. We are 
told the direct cause why the non-elect are reprobated; 
viz. , for their sins. Yea, so extremely clear is this that 
Dr. Breckenridge distinctl} T informs us that it is " im- 
possible to imagine that they would be condemned 
under any other circumstances." What! under no 
other circumstances ? No, this is not to be imagined, 
much less postulated. Well then, Dr. Breckenridge 
has performed impossibilities ; for after writing the 
above, he gravely says, "On the other hand, it will 
not do to say God passes by and reprobates lost sin- 
ners merely on account of their sins, either original or 
actual : because as to original sin, the elect were as 
deeply polluted as the reprobate, and as to actual 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



215 



transgressions, the great glory of the Saviour is that 
he is able to save unto the uttermost them that come 
to God by him." 6 

I have heard of, and justly admired Dr. Brecken- 
ridge for his power as a preacher ; but I now have a 
new cause for admiring his wonderful imagination which 
has actually achieved impossibilities. ''Original" 
and 1 ' actual sin ' ' exhaust the Calvinistic vocabulary 
on sin. If, therefore, the non-elect are not reprobated 
"merely on account of their sins, either original or 
actual, ' ' as our esteemed author affirms they are not, 
it must be on account of something over and above 
their sins : which is the very thing impossible to be 
imagined. Will some kind Calvinistic friend inform 
us where this unimaginable cause is revealed in the 
Bible ? 

The views of Dr. John Gill are somewhat peculiar. 
He divides the decree of rejection into two parts, viz., 
pretention and predamnation. " Pretention is God's 
passing by some men, when he chose others ; in this 
act, sin comes not into consideration, for men are con- 
sidered as not created, and so as not fallen : it is a 
pure act. of sovereignty. Predamnation is God's 
appointment or preordination of men to condemnation 
for sin. God damns men but for sin, and he decreed 
to damn none but for sin." 7 

Here we have the unscriptural statement that men 
are passed by, or that God has determined not to save 
some, for nothing, absolutely nothing ; for so far forth, 



6 " The Knowledge of God. Objectively Considered," pp. 5, 15, 16. 

7 As quoted by Rev. Daniel T. Fiske in a " Review of Gill's Works." 
"Bib. Sacra," Vol. XVIII., p. 360. 



2l6 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

"sin comes not into consideration " ; " it is a pure act 
of sovereignty." 

After having thus determined to 1 ' pass by ' ' the 
non-elect, after having decreed not to give them sal- 
vation, God decrees to condemn them for their sins. 
Where is the passage of Scripture justifying this 
illogical and manifestly unfair procedure ? Beyond 
all controversy none are appointed to damnation but 
those previously rejected, and this "passing by" is 
the basis of the damnatory appointment : consequently 
the distinction of Dr. Gill does not touch the question 
at issue. Free from all circumlocution his doctrine is 
consistent Calvinism, namely, the non-elect are con- 
demned and eternally punished for nothing. If this 
kind of reasoning characterized the works of Dr. Gill, 
it is no wonder Robert Hall thought them " a conti- 
nent of mud." 

Dr. Pictet asserts ' ' When any are lost, we do not 
hesitate to say that they perish by their own deserts, 
although God could have mercifully saved them had 
it pleased him." Again he says, " Sin, therefore, is 
the cause, on account of which God hath passed by 
some men : for had there been no sin, no man 
would have been forsaken. ' ' This last remark simply 
skims the surface of the subject. I do not question 
that sin is the means by which the non-elect are con- 
demned. But, inasmuch as ' ' God could have merci- 
fully saved them, had it pleased him," I desire to 
know the generic reason why that mercy was not 
exercised by Him of whom it is said, "I have no 
pleasure in the death of the wicked. ' ' The answer is 
at hand. Dr. Pictet adds, "Yet if it be asked why 
one man is passed by and not the other, it can not then 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE). 



217 



be said that sin is the cause of this difference, since 
both are equally sinners, and therefore, equally deserv- 
ing of rejection ; but it must be referred to the sov- 
ereign pleasure of God. ' ' 8 

Will the reader please carefully notice the follow- 
ing from Dr. John Dick ? ' ' The term predestination 
includes the decrees of election and reprobation. 
Some, indeed, confine it to election ; but there seems 
to be no sufficient reason for not extending it to the 
one as well as the other ; as in both, the final con- 
dition of man is pre-appointed, or predestinated. . . . 
They were appointed to wrath for their sins ; but it 
was not for their sins, as we have shown, but in exer- 
cise of sovereignty, that they were rejected." 9 

If we make any distinction concerning the 
"appointment" to wrath, and the " rejection," the 
latter must have the priority ; hence the non-elect are 
rejected irrespective of anything which they have 
done. Against this manifest inequality I earnestly 
protest in the name of him who said, " Therefore I 
will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according 
to his ways." 

SKCTION v 

The Doctrine Denied by Some Calvinists, but Logically 
Necessitated by their Fundamental Position. 

Since the death of the Reformer, Calvinism has 
been gradually gravitating toward Arminianism. 
Doubtless the reader has observed this change of base 
as he has read the previous chapters. The sections of 



8 " Theology," p. 213. 

9 " Theology," pp. 360, 361. 



218 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

this chapter are equally conclusive. The early Cal- 
vinists, following their leader, positively declared that 
the non-elect are eternally condemned irrespective of 
anything which they had done. These were followed 
by a second class of writers who made the distinction 
of "appointment" and "rejection," declaring that 
the former is for sin, while the latter is an act of mere 
sovereignty. Now, as we shall presently see, there is 
a third class who persistently affirm that the non-elect 
are condemned for their sins, or wicked character : all 
other reasons are carefully omitted from any consider- 
ation, so sure are they that this is the cause. The 
following selections will sufficiently indicate the trend 
of these milder Calvinists. 

Toplady says, ' ' When we say that the decree of 
predestination to life and death respects man as fallen, 
we do not mean that the fall was actually antecedent 
to that decree ; for the decree is truly and properly 
eternal, as all God's immanent acts undoubtedly are ; 
whereas, the fall took place in time. What we intend 
then, is only this, viz., that God (for reasons without 
doubt, worthy of himself and of which we are by no 
means in this life competent judges), having from ever- 
lasting peremptorily ordained to suffer the fall of Adam, 
did likewise from everlasting consider the human 
race as fallen ; and out of the whole mass of mankind, 
thus viewed and foreknown as impure and obnoxious 
to condemnation, vouchsafed to select some particular 
persons (who collectively make up a very great, 
though precisely determinate number) in and on 
whom he would make known the ineffable riches of 
his mercy." 1 



l "Works," p. 689. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



2ig 



Charnock says, " Reprobation in its first notion is 
an act of pretention, or passing by. A man is not 
made wicked by the act of God ; but it supposeth him 
wicked, and so it is nothing else but God's leaving a 
man in that guilt and filth wherein he beholds him. 
In its second notion it is an ordination, not to a crime, 
but to a punishment Qude 4) ' an ordaining to con- 
demnation. ' And though it be an eternal act of God, 
yet, in order of nature, it follows upon the foresight 
of the transgression of man and supposeth the crime." 2 

In "Tracts on the Doctrines, Order and Polity of 
the Presbyterian Church," Dr. G. W. Musgrave says, 
"What we do maintain, I repeat it, is, that God has 
determined to ' pass by ' the non-elect, and to permit 
them to continue in unbelief and disobedience ; and 
foreseeing that if left to themselves they would thus 
freely and criminally reject his gospel and rebel 
against his law, he determined to punish them with 
eternal death for their sins and according to their just 
deserts." 3 

Of the non-elect, Dr. Wm. D. Smith says, " There 
is nothing that hinders their salvation but their own 
aversion to holiness, and their love of sin ; and it is 
for this that God has purposed to damn them." 4 

Dr. N. L,. Rice explains the doctrine as follows : 
"Now Arminians agree with us, that on the day of 
judgment God will pronounce sentence of eternal con- 
demnation upon multitudes of men. ' Then shall he say 
unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, 
into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his 



2 " Attributes of God," p. 492. 

3 Vol. III., p. 208. 

4 " What is Calvinism ? " p. 51. 



220 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

angels. And these shall go away into everlasting 
punishment.' Will this fearful sentence be just? 
Arminians agree with us that it will, because it will 
be a sentence of merited punishment for their sins. 
Then can there be any objection to saying, that God 
purposed from eternity to pronounce this just sentence ? 
He foresaw the sin of the finally impenitent, and for 
their sin he purposed to inflict upon them the just 
penalty of his law. Can any one object to this ? Can 
it be unjust in God to purpose to do a just act ? " 5 

Dr. Lyman H. Atwater says, "Election is an act 
of special mercy and grace which chooses some to be 
rescued out of this doomed mass and made heirs of 
glory, and insures all the requisites to the fulfillment 
of this purpose. Reprobation, otherwise called Pre- 
tention, is simply the passing by those not thus in- 
cluded in the purpose of election, and leaving them to 
go on unreclaimed to merited perdition. It is thus a 
judicial and punitive, and, in this sense, not a merely 
arbitrary act." 6 

In considering this doctrine the reader will please 
notice that all these writers agree in declaring that the 
non-elect are reprobated, or passed b}^ because of 
their sins. God "considered the human race as 
fallen": it is God's "leaving a man in that guilt and 
filth, wherein he (God) beholds him ; " God " deter- 
mined to punish them with eternal death for their sins, 
and according to their just merits ; " it is for their love 
of sin ' ' that God has purposed to damn them ; " it is 
"a sentence of merited punishment for their sins; " 
this pretention is "to merited perdition." 



5 "God Sovereign and Man Free," p. 136. 

6 " Presby. Quarterly," 1873, p, 165. 



ANDAMAN'S morai, nature. 



221 



But this sentence of condemnation is an eternal act 
of God, and hence before creation. True. Conse- 
quently so far forth, the act of condemnation is based, 
or grounded upon the divine foresight of the race as 
fallen. Certainly, for says Toplady, "out of the 
whole mass of mankind, thus viewed and foreknown 
as impure and obnoxious to condemnation," God 
' ' vouchsafed ' ' salvation to ' ' some particular persons. ' ' 
Charnock declares that the condemnation ' ' follows 
upon the foresight of the transgression." Dr. Mus- 
grave affirms that God ' ■ foreseeing that if left to them- 
selves they would thus freely and criminally reject his 
gospel and rebel against his law, he determined ' ' to 
condemn them. Dr. Rice says, " He foresaw the sin 
of the finally impenitent, and for their sin he purposed 
to inflict upon them the just penalty of his law." 
Dr. Atwater says, in a paragraph immediately above 
the one quoted, that his doctrine ' ' makes election and 
reprobation act upon the race viewed as fallen, sinful, 
already deserving and bound over to perdition." 
Then, beyond all controversy, according to these 
writers, the act, or decree of reprobation, or preter- 
ition "follows," comes after, "the foresight of the 
transgression." 

But so far this is pure Arminianism. I doubt not 
the reader is sufficiently versed in the doctrines of 
these two rival S3'Stems to know that the above affir- 
mation is literally true. But to place the matter beyond 
all dispute I will add the necessary proof. In speak- 
ing of the doctrine of the Arminians, Dr. Ashbel 
Green says, "They say that the foreknowledge of 
God is the ground of his decree." 7 



v "Lectures on the Shorter Catechism," p. 178. 



22 2 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



" Election and reprobation, as Arminianism holds 
them, are conditioned upon the conduct and voluntary 
character of the subjects. All submitting to God and 
righteousness, by repentance of sin and true self-con- 
secrating faith, do meet the conditions of that elec- 
tion ; all who persist in sin present the qualities upon 
which reprobation depends. And as this preference 
for the obedient and holy, and rejection of the dis- 
obedient and unholy, lies in the very nature of God, 
so this election and reprobation are from before the 
foundations of the world." 8 

Thus it is evident beyond all cavil that the Calvinis- 
tic theologians whose views lead them to declare that the 
decree of reprobation follows the foresight of the trans- 
gression, have so far, adopted one of the fundamental 
principles of Arminianism. But does not Calvinism 
declare that the decrees are one ? Yes, verily we are 
so taught. Dr. Hodge declares " The decrees of God, 
therefore, are not many, but one purpose." 9 Toplady 
declares that ' ' the twofold predestination of some to 
life and of others to death ' ' are ' ' constituent parts of 
the same decree. ' ' 1 Howe affirms ' ' That all the pur- 
poses of the divine will are co- eternal There 

can be no place for dispute about the priority or pos- 
teriority of this or that purpose of God. They must 
be all simultaneous, all at once, in one and the same 
eternal view according to that clear and distinct, and 
all-comprehending prospect that he hath of all things 
eternally before his eyes." 2 



8 Dr. Whedon. "Methodist Quarter^ Review," 1879^.409. 
a " Systematic Theology." Vol. I., p. 537. 

1 " Works," p. 690. 

2 " Works," p. 1135. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



223 



Consequently, the conclusion is legitimate, yea, 
irresistible, that if one decree "follows upon the fore- 
sight of the transgression of man," if one decree 
" suppose th " a man wicked, the other part of the 
decree follows upon a foresight that the soul will 
repent and believe. Or in other words, the view of 
these Calvinists is one-half Arminianism, which logic- 
ally necessitates the other half. 

But let us examine the other horn of the dilemma. 
Is it consistent Calvinism to teach that any of the 
divine decrees are based upon, or follow the divine 
foresight ? This question is vitally important to a 
correct understanding of the whole discussion. It 
meets the student of theology at every turn because 
of the contradictory assertions which are constantly 
made — either directly or indirectly — by Calvinistic 
writers. At one stage of the discussion you are told 
that the decrees are not conditioned, based, or grounded 
upon anything in man : but presto, change, and now 
you are told that the doctrine of reprobation is ' ' sim- 
ply," yes, " simply the passing by those not thus in- 
cluded in the purpose of election, and leaving them to 
go on unreclaimed to merited perdition." I now pro- 
pose to show that this is ' ' simply' ' impossible according 
to the fundamental position of Calvinism. To avoid 
needless repetition, the reader is directed to Chapter 11. 
of Part I. He will there find the teaching of Cal- 
vinism in answer to the question, Are God's Decrees 
Conditional ? Are they based on the divine fore- 
knowledge ? He will there find that from Augustine 
to Dr. Charles Hodge, Calvinism has always affirmed 
the unconditional decree as the basis of its system ; 
hence, the Westminster Confession of Faith is histor- 



224 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

ically correct in saying, ' ' Although God knows what- 
soever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed 
conditions ; yet hath he not decreed anything because 
he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come 
to pass upon such conditions." Dr. Venema says, 
1 ' The act of the decree is absolute ; not uncertain or 
doubtful. It is not suspended on any condition on 
the part of man." If the decrees are not conditioned 
on anything in man, then it is a waste of time to 
affirm that the act of reprobation follows upon the 
foresight of the transgression. If we accept the fun- 
damental position of Calvinism, that God could not 
know what his creatures would do before he had 
determined their actions, we must forever banish all 
thought about the non-elect being condemned, and left 
to their merited punishment. It is incontestably cer- 
tain that Calvinism teaches the unity of the divine 
decrees : the divine foreknowledge, as depending on 
those decrees, and therefore Calvinism does teach, 
directly and indirectly , that the non-elect are eternally 
condemned, irrespective of their foreseen wickedness. 
The denial of this necessitates Arminianism. 

SECTION VI. 

The Bible Argument. 

We have already considered some passages of 
Scripture concerning God's dealings with the non- 
elect. But as they represent the brighter side of the 
subject, let us now examine those parts of the Bible 
which the Calvinist claims in support of his dark and 
extremely repulsive doctrine of reprobation. I pro- 
pose to deal fairly with the reader and give him ample 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



225 



opportunity to see on which side is the truth. For 
convenience I shall divide the subject into three parts, 
first examining the passages which declare God's 
agency in the production of evil. " But the Spirit of 
the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from 
the Lord troubled him " (1. Sam. xvi. 14). See also 
xviii. 10, and xix. 9. "Thussaith the Lord, Behold, 
I will raise up evil against thee, out of thine own 
house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, 
and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie 
with thy wives in the sight of this sun" (11. Sam. 
xii. 11). "And the King said, What have I to do 
with you, ye sons of Zeruiah ? so let him curse, be- 
cause the Lord hath said unto him, Curse David. Who 
shall then say, Wherefore hast thou done so ? " (xvi. 
10). " And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, 
The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the 
counsel of Ahithophel. For the Lord had appointed 
to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent 
that the Lord might bring evil upon Absalom " (xvii. 
14). " And again the anger of the Lord was kindled 
against Israel and he moved David against them to 
say, Go, number Israel and Judah " (xxiv. 1). 
' ' Wherefore the King hearkened not unto the people ; 
for the cause was from the Lord, that he might per- 
form his saying, which the Lord spoke by Ahijah the 
Shilonite unto Jeroboam the son of Nebat " (1. Kings 
xii. 15). " And the Lord said, Who shall persuade 
Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead ? 
And one said on this manner, and another said on 
that manner. And there came forth a spirit and stood 
before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him. And 
the Lord said unto him, Wherewith ? And he said, I 



226 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth 
of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt per- 
suade him, and prevail also : go forth, and do so. 
Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying 
spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the 
Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee " (xxii. 20-23). 
' ' Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not 
good, and judgments whereby they should not live. 
And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they 
caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the 
womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end 
that they might know that I am the Lord ' ' (Ezek. xx. 
25-26). " Shall a trumpet be blown in the city and 
the people be not afraid ? Shall there be evil in a city, 
and the Lord hath not done it?" (Amos iii. 6). I 
form the light, and create darkness ; I make peace, 
and create evil. I the Lord do all these things " (Isa. 
xlv. 7). 

In considering the meaning of these passages no- 
tice (a) That if we take the exact, the literal interpre- 
tation, God must be the author of sin. He who 
creates evil (sin) must be the author, and therefore we 
see at once that this can not be the truth, (b) At 
times the term ' ' evil ' ' must be understood as phys- 
ical instead of moral. Calamities, punishments, death, 
are often spoken of or alluded to in the Bible as evil 
from the Lord (Seei. Kings xvii. 20). Thus Cowles 
on the passage in Amos says, " Shall we not recognize 
God's agency as including and working all the in- 
flictions of calamity that fall on guilty cities ? This 
' evil in the city,' which v. 6 assumes that the Lord 
has done, must be natural, not moral; calamity, not 
sin. The original Hebrew is used frequently for nat- 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



227 



ural evil, e.g., Gen. xix. 19: 'Lest some evil take 
me and I die ; ' and Gen. xliv. 34 : ' Lest peradventure 
I see the evil that shall come on my father ; ' also Ex. 
xxxii. 14. Besides, the strain of the whole passage is 
of natural evil — the judgment about to come from 
God on apostate and guilty Israel. To construe this 
evil, therefore, as being sin, and not calamity, is to ig- 
nore the whole current of thought, and to outrage the 
soundest, most vital laws of interpretation. More- 
over, the common justice toward God forbids this con- 
struction. 'Shall there be sin in the city, and the 
Lord hath not done it ? ' This would assume that 
God is the doer of all the sin in our world." 3 

By observing this legitimate method of interpreta- 
tion many of the supposed difficulties are at once 
obviated. Throughout this discussion I have main- 
tained that God does punish individuals and nations 
according to their wickedness. 

As we have seen, this is the doctrine of Scripture. 
In most of the passages already considered, the reason 
for the chastisement is clearly stated even before the 
doom is pronounced. 

The strong language in Ezek. xx. 25, 26 is prefixed 
with the words, " Because they had not executed my 
judgments, but had despised my statutes and had 
polluted my Sabbaths, and their eyes were after their 
father's idols." Are we to wonder that God's pun- 
ishments were severe ? His chosen people had for- 
saken their Deliverer ; had abandoned the true wor- 
ship to serve idols of wood, silver and gold. "Ah, 
sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of 
evildoers, children that are corrupters ! they have 

3 " The Minor Prophets." 



228 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One 
of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward ' ' 
(Isa. i. 4). In the numbering of the nations by David, 
we must assume that the people had sinned — for surely 
God is not a petulant tyrant — angry at, and condemn- 
ing them without sufficient reason. So far forth there 
is no difficulty. The mysterious and painful aspects 
of the problem are in the statement that the Lord 
moved David to commit this sin. Some light is 
thrown on the subject by the corresponding passage 
in 1. Chron. xxi. 1, where we are told that "Satan 
stood up against Israel, and provoked David to num- 
ber Israel." From this we are compelled to believe 
that if God had anything to do with the sin of David, 
it must have been negatively, in the sense of permis- 
sion. But if God permitted that, when he could have 
prevented, does it not follow that after all we must accept 
it as really the Divine Will ? Yes, it seems so to me : 
consequently I advance the thought that these passages 
are to be interpreted in the light of the Hebrew concep- 
tion of Jehovah. If all Scripture is given by inspira- 
tion of God, then the Old Testament can not be placed 
above the New. Beyond all controversy there is 
a progress of doctrine. That which was at first ob- 
scurely revealed, was afterwards more clearly declared : 
hence it is now universally accepted as an axiom in 
Bible interpretation that the clear must interpret the 
obscure. Consequently, the searcher for truth must 
examine these Old Testament passages in the light of 
the Epistle of James. ' ' Let no man say when he is 
tempted, I am tempted of God ; for God can not be 
tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man " 
(i. 13). Alford says, " The temptation is a trying of 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 229 

the man by the solicitation of evil ; whether that evil 
be the terror of eternal danger, or whatever it be, all 
temptation by means of it, arises not from God, but 
from ourselves — our own lust. God ordains the temp- 
tation, overrules the temptation, but does not tempt, 
is not the spring of the solicitation to sin." The fol- 
lowing from Dr. L. P. Hickok is worthy of careful 
consideration. "Here is more than mere assertion 
that God does not tempt to evil ; the declaration has 
an ample reason given for it. A tempter to evil must 
himself have been tempted with evil, and this can not 
be of God. God can not so be tempted, and thus 
demonstrably God can not tempt any man. If God 
entices to sin, he must have come to wish sin ; and, 
as the latter is impossible, the former is necessarily 
excluded. So categorical a denial of God's tempta- 
bility to evil, for the sake of excluding him from all 
complicity with the evil, and shutting out all excuse 
for sin from the assumption that God tempted to sin, 
demands careful consideration, if we are clearly to 
apprehend the reasons which authorize it." 4 

If this reasoning be correct then we are necessarily 
excluded from interpreting these passages as teaching 
— directly or indirectly — that God does tempt to evil. 

How shall we proceed ? As it seems to me, the 
truth is this. According to the popular conception of 
the Hebrews, Jehovah did everything. Secondary 
causes were scarcely recognized . Everything was the 
manifestation of God, and all events were intimately 
related to him. Let the reader examine any of the 



4 " Temptation no Excuse for Transgression." "Bib. Sacra," 1873, 
p. 653. See also, " Bib. Sacra." 1878. Art. " Doc. of the Epistle of James," 
by Prof. E. P. Gould, D.D. 



230 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD's WORD 

Psalms and he will readily see this idealistic spirit 
which prompted the writer to say God ' ' rode upon a 
cherub, and did fly, yea, he did fly upon the wings of 
the wind. The Lord also thundered in the heavens, 
and the Highest gave his voice ; hailstones and coals 
of fire. ' ' As time continued, the perceptive faculties 
became more active and discriminating, so that gradu- 
ally, through many ages of moral training, the Chris- 
tian Doctrine of James is unfolded. For fear the reader 
may think that this is a mere theory of mine, invented 
to escape supposed difficulties, I desire to add the views 
of eminent commentators. In speaking of the true 
prophet before Ahab, Cowles sa} r s, " Micaiah notwith- 
standing, resumes, to describe another prophetic scene 
— a kind of cabinet council (of course this is drapery), 
location not given, to debate the question how to 
allure Ahab up to Ramoth-Gilead to fall there in battle. 
.... In respect to the moralit} r of this transaction as 
related to the Lord, it meets no other difficult}^ than is 
involved in every case of God's providential agency in 
the existence of sin — which agency is not a license for 
sinning — is never the employing of his moral subjects 
to do the sinning ; but is simply leaving the wicked to 
commit sin of their own free will, his shaping hand 
being interposed only to turn it to best moral ac- 
count." 5 

Dr. E. P. Barrows says, "The Scriptures ascribe 
every actual event to God in such a sense that it comes 
into the plan of his universal providence ; but they re- 
ject with abhorrence the idea that he can excite wicked 
thoughts in men, or prompt them to wicked deeds." 6 



5 " Hebrew History," pp. 287, 288. 

6 " Companion to the Bible," p. 541. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURK. 23 1 

The thought which I am seeking to elucidate is 
thus admirably expressed by Dr. John Tulloch. In 
speaking of the Old Testament Doctrine of Sin, he 
says " Facts of evil (ra), no less than of good, are 
traced upwards to the Almighty Will, as the ultimate 
source of all things. This is true beyond all question ; 
but it exceeds the truth to say, as Kuenen does, that 
the older Israelitish prophets and historians did not 
hesitate to derive even moral evil from Jahveh. Precise 
distinctions of morality and contingency were unfamil- 
iar to the Hebrew mind ; and at no time would this 
mind have shrunk from attributing every form of evil 
accident (however immediately caused by human wick- 
edness) to the Sovereign Power, which did as it willed 
in heaven and on earth. But it is nevertheless true, as 
has been clearly seen in the course of our exposition, 
that the essential idea of evil in the Hebrew mind was 
so far from associating itself with the Divine Will, that 
its special note or characteristic was opposition to this 
Will. The line of later argument, as to a possible 
relation of the Divine Will to sin (whereby its omnip- 
otence and yet its purity should be preserved) is for- 
eign to the Old Testament. It grasps events concretely ; 
it does not analyze them in their origin or nature." 7 

Such, in my opinion is the fact, and the correct 
philosophy — the consistent explanation of the fact, is 
the Arminian doctrine of Divine Foresight. 

God foresees all the free actions of his creatures ; 
consequently he so arranges the government of the 
world that wickedness acts upon wickedness. Hence, 
to the popular conception, God does this or that sin- 



7 " The Christian Doctrine of Sin," p. 96. See Oehler's O. T. Theol. 
Am. ed., pp. 122-154. 



232 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

ful deed, whereas, in reality, it is the individual acting 
out his free wickedness — under the guidance of the 
Divine Omniscience. In this connection it will be 
profitable to consider the view of Olshausen who says, 
' ' Abstract evil never appears in history ; it is but evil 
personalities, who with their evil deeds, ever appear 
on the scene : these, however, exist in necessary com- 
bination with the work of good, because, in every evil 
being, and even in the devil and his angels, the powers 
themselves with which they act are of God, who be- 
stows on them at the same time both the form in which, 
and the circumstances under which, they may come 
into manifestation Though the whole develop- 
ment and form of evil in the world's history depends 
upon God, so far as it is he who causes the evil to be evil 
in that particular form in which he is so, yet the being 
evil, in itself, is the simple consequence of the abuse 

of man's own free will All evil, in God's hand, 

serves but for a foil and for the promotion of good, and 
yet his wrath burns with justice against it, because 
it originates only in the wickedness of the creature 
which receives its punishment from righteousness. 
. . . . Though, therefore, in virtue of his attributes 
of omniscience and omnipotence. God assuredly fore- 
knows who they are that will resist his grace, and 
causes them to appear in definite forms in history, he 
knows them only as persons who, by abuse of their 
own free will, have become evil and continue so." 8 

Let us examine some passages in which God is 
said to have hardened the heart and to have blinded 
the eyes of men. "And I will harden Pharaoh's 
heart, that he shall follow after them ; and I will be 



s "Commentary." Vol. IV. pp. 79, 80, 92. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



233 



honored upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host ; that 
the Egyptians may know that I am the Lord " (Exo- 
dus xiv. 4). See also chapters vii., viii. , ix. "But 
Sihon, King of Heshbon would not let us pass by 
him ; for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and 
made his heart obstinate that he might deliver him 
into thy hand " ( Deut. ii. 30). Eli says to his wicked 
sons, " If one man sin against another, the judge shall 
judge him ; but if a man sin against the Lord, who 
shall entreat for him ? Notwithstanding, they heark- 
ened not unto the voice of their father, because the 
Lord would slay them" (1. Sam. ii. 25). " O Lord, 
why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and 
hardened our heart from thy fear ? Return for thy 
servant's sake, the tribes of thine inheritance" (Isa. 
lxiii. 17). "At that time Jesus answered and said, I 
thank thee O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, be- 
cause thou hast hid these things from the wise and 
prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even 
so, Father ; for so it seemed good in thy sight ' ' 
(Matt. xi. 25, 26). "But # though he had done so 
many miracles before them, yet they believed not on 
him ; That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be 
fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed 
our report ? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord 
been revealed ? Therefore they could not believe, be- 
cause that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their 
eyes, and hardened their heart ; that they should not see 
with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and 
be converted, and I should heal them " (John xii. 37- 
40). " For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, even 
for this same purpose have I raised thee up that I 
might shew my power in thee, and that my name 



234 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

might be declared throughout all the earth. There- 
fore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and 
whom he will he hardeneth " (Rom. ix. 17, 18). 

Having no desire to deny the legitimate meaning 
of these, and other passages, I shall not do as did a 
minister of whom Professor Park says, that having 
selected as a text the words, ''The lyord hardened 
Pharaoh's heart," announced as his main proposition, 
"The lyord did not harden Pharaoh's heart." I read- 
ily grant there is a sense in which these declarations 
are true. It is, therefore, pertinent to ask what are 
we to understand by these affirmations ? I can not 
accept the usual Calvinistic interpretation, for the fol- 
lowing reasons: (a) It makes a radical contradiction 
between God's Will and Command. He tells Pharaoh 
to do a certain thing, yet does not wish it done. He 
commands all men to believe, and to be saved, yet he 
hardens their hearts and blinds their eyes so they will 
not. (b) It contradicts the axiom that ' ' God can not 
be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." 
(V) It contradicts other parts of Scripture. God speaks 
to his people through Jeremiah, saying, " Will ye steal, 
murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and 
burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods 
whom ye know not ; and come and stand before me in 
this house, which is called by my name, and say, We 
are delivered to do all these abominations ? " (Jer. viii. 
9, 10.) Jehovah solemnly warns his people that their 
wickedness will not go unpunished. The sacredness 
of God's house will be no protection against his 
righteous displeasure. " Behold, to obey is better 
than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." 
' ' And they have built the high places of Tophet, 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



235 



which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn 
their sons and their daughters in the fire ; which I 
commanded them not, neither came it into my heart' ' 
(Jer. vii : 31). Cowles says, When he says here that 
he never commanded it, and it had never come into 
his heart, we must understand him to mean that he 
had strictly forbidden it, and that it was repulsive and 
abominable to his heart." In this connection the 
reader should examine Kzek. xviii, where this Calvin- 
istic idea that God wills one thing but commands the 
opposite, is unqualifiedly condemned. 

As the hardening of Pharaoh's heart is a fair ex- 
emplification of the Calvinist's doctrine I will take it 
as a criterion for other passages. ^Fhat the reader may 
judge for himself I shall quote from different authori- 
ties of acknowledged ability. Alluding to Jas. i. 13, 
14, Moses Stuart says, " With this unequivocal asser- 
tion of an apostle before our eyes, an assertion bearing 
directly on the specific point of internal excitement to 
do evil, we ought not to take any position which 
maintains that God operated directly on the heart 
and mind of Pharaoh, in order to harden him and 
make him more desperate But having ad- 
vanced thus far, we must go still farther in order to 
obtain satisfaction as to the point in question. This 
can be obtained only by a considered and extensive 
survey of the usus loquendi in the Scriptures, with 
reference to God as the author of all things. There is 
a sense, in which he is the author of all things, yea, 
of all actions. He has created all things. Under his 
control, and by his direction and power, they come 
into existence. None but atheists will deny this." 
After considering such passages as Isa. vi, 10, John 



236 CALVINISM CONTRARY, TO GOD'S WORD 

xii. 40, Dr. Stuart says, ' ' Here then is one and the 
same case, which is represented in three different ways. 
(1) The prophet hardens the Jews. (2) God does 
the same thing. (3 ) The Jewish people do it them- 
selves. Is all this true ; or is one part contradictory 
to another? We may safely answer: It is all true. 
The prophet is said to harden the hearts of the Jews, 
merely because he is the instrument of delivering 
messages to them ; while they, in consequence of 
abusing these, become more hardened and guilty. 
God hardens their hearts, in that by his providence he 
sustains them in life, upholds the use of all their 
powers, causes the prophets to warn and reprove them, 
and places them in "circumstances where they must re- 
ceive these warnings and reproofs. Under this 
arrangement of his providence they become more 
hardened and wicked. In this sense, and in this only, 
do the Scriptures seem to affirm that he is concerned 
with the hardening of men's hearts." 9 

The orthodoxy of Dr. Jas. G. Murphy, of Belfast, 
is beyond reproach. His remarks are worthy of care- 
ful consideration. " The very patience and modera- 
tion which were calculated to subdue a will amenable 
to reason, only aroused the resistance and vengeance 
of Pharaoh. Every succeeding step in the procedure 
of God is dictated by a like consideration and for- 
bearance. Though it be true, therefore, that God did 
harden Pharaoh's heart, yet it was by measures that 
would have disarmed the opposition and commanded 
the acquiescence of an upright mind." On chap. ix. 
12, he says, " Here it is to be observed that the very 
means that would have brought an unbiased and un- 



9 " Com." on Romans, pp. 634, 635, 636. Sixth Ed., 1857. 



AND MAN'S* MORAI, NATURE. 



237 



clouded mind to conviction and submission only begat 
a stolid and infatuated obstinacy in the monarch of 
Egypt. The course of the divine interposition has 
been one of uniform mildness and forbearance, only 
proceeding to judicial chastisements when negotiation 
would not avail, and advancing gradually to severer 
measures only when the more gentle were disregarded. 
His obduracy is now come to such a pitch of stupidity 
that we can not catch a shadow of reason for his con- 
duct ; ' ' On the words ' ' But for this cause have I 
raised thee up," our author remarks: "Not stricken 
thee down with the pestilence, but preserved thee from 
it in my longsuffering patience. " 1 

As this event is described in Romans, Olshausen 
thinks that Paul ' ' means that God permitted that 
evil person, who of his own free will resisted all those 
workings of grace which were communicated in rich 
measure even to him, to come into manifestation at 
that time, and under these circumstances, in such a 
form that the very evil that was in him should even 
serve for the furtherance of the Kingdom of The Good 
and the glory of God " 2 

Prof. Cowles thinks that " the well-known pro- 
clivities and activities of a proud, stubborn, human 
heart," are sufficient to satisfactorily account for the 
conduct of Pharaoh. "If it be still argued that the 
very words declare, ' God hardened Pharaoh's heart,' 
the answer is ; God is said to do what he foresees will 
be done by others and done under such arrangements 
of his providence as make it possible and morally cer- 
tain that they will do it. Joseph said to his brethren 



J " Exodus," pp. 74, 97, 98. Ed. 1868. 
2 "Com." p. 94. Ed. 1S61. 



238 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

(Gen. xlv. 5, 7, 8), 'Be not angry with yourselves 
that ye sold me hither, for God did send me before you 
to preserve life. So now it was not you that sent me 
hither but God. ' Yet it is simply impious to put the 
sin of selling Joseph into Egypt over upon God. God 
did it only in the same sense in which he hardened 
Pharaoh's heart. He had a purpose to subserve by 
means of the sin of Joseph's brethren : and he did no 
doubt permit such circumstances to occur in his prov- 
idence as made that sin possible and as resulted in 
their sinning, and in the remote consequences which 

God anticipated Nothing can be more plain 

than the revelations of Scripture concerning God's 
character as infinitely pure and holy — as a Being who 
not only can never sin himself, but can never be 
pleased to have others sin, and above all can never 
put forth his power to make them sin. God can not 
be tempted with evil, ' neither tempteth he any man.' 
When he declares so solemnly and so tenderly : 1 O 
do not that abominable thing which I hate, ' shall it 
still be said, But he puts men to sinning ; pushes them 
on in their sin ; inclines their heart to sin and hardens 
them to more and guiltier sinning ? Never ! " 3 

If thereader will carefully compare Matt. xi. 25, 26, 
with 1. Cor. i. 18-26, he will see two things, viz., that 
Jesus was thanking the Father for a spiritual religion ; 
a religion which was to be apprehended by faith and 
not by sight. As a consequence of this spirituality, it 
was, is, and must needs be, hid unto those, who, 
through self-righteousness think they have no need of 
a Saviour. Gess as quoted by Godet in "Luke" 
admirably says, " To pride of knowledge, blindness is 

3 " Pentateuch," pp. 202, 203, 204. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



239 



the answer ; to that simplicity of heart which wishes 
truth, revelation." 

It is now in order to consider the words of Paul, 
" Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same 
lump to make one vessel unto honor and another unto 
dishonor?" (Rom. ix. 21). The thought is partially 
revealed in Isa. xxix. 16 ; xlv. 9, and lxiv. 8 ; but in 
these passages the prophet seeks to disclose the guilt 
and extreme folly of denying God's authority as 
Creator. Hence Paul's illustration is generally referred 
to Jer. xviii. 6, " O house of Israel, can not I do 
with you as this potter ? saith the Lord. Behold, as 
the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in my hand, 
O house of Israel. ' ' 

Unless, we have positive knowledge to the contrary, 
it is fair to suppose that Paul used this illustration 
according to its historical meaning. As thus given 
by Jeremiah what is its legitimate teaching? The 
prophet is told to go down to the potter's house, where 
he saw him at work on the wheels. " And the vessel 
that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the 
potter ; so he made it again another vessel, as seemed 
good to the potter to make it. ' ' Then comes the divine 
warning, " O house of Israel, can not I do with you as 
this potter ? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in 
the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of 
Israel." 

Now, laying aside all prejudice, let us see if we 
can find the prophet's meaning. Notice (1) The 
potter changed his mind : he started to make some- 
thing but so far forth, failed. Then he made some- 
thing else. (2) The reason for this change was outside 
of the potter : he is not represented as changing for 



240 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

some unrevealed, mysterious reason, but the cause for 
the change is emphatically affirmed, viz., the temper 
of the clay. (3) This changed temper necessitates 
the changed purpose, and this is according to the 
potter's will. Now I do not expect every Calvinist 
will concede these points, but I challenge him to prove 
their incorrectness. So far from affording him any 
ground for his doctrine the passage directly condemns 
his position. Two important truths are here taught ; 
viz., (a) God's power. He can plant, pluck up, or 
destroy : (b) This power is used according to the tem- 
per of those with whom he has to deal : hence he 
says through the prophet, " If that nation against 
whom I pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent 
of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at 
what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and 
concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it. If it 
do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I 
will repent of the good wherewith I said I would ben- 
efit them." " L,et it be noted that this illustration is 
not used here to show that God makes and moulds the 
free moral activities of men, even the free action of 
their will, according to his absolute pleasure, allowing 
them no more responsibility or activity than the clay 
has in the potter's hand. This is neither asserted nor 
implied here. This is not by any means the point of 
the comparison ; but the point is, as we shall soon see, 
that God can speak concerning a nation to pull it down 
and destroy it, or to build it up, and instantly the 
agencies of his providence prove themselves perfectly 

adequate for this result Note that God does 

not represent his power as in such a sense arbitrary 
and sovereign, that it has no respect to the moral state 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



2 4 I 



of his creatures. The very opposite of this is true. 
God shows that he exercises his agency so as to meet 
their moral state precisely, sparing the penitent and 
destroying the incorrigibly wicked." 4 

As this is the true teaching of the passage it is 
more than probable that Paul used it in its historical 
application, viz., the rejection and acceptance of na- 
tions. It is conceded by eminent Calvinists that in the 
ninth chapter of this Epistle, Paul's primary object is 
to elucidate how, or for what reason, the Jews as a na- 
tion were rejected. Bloomfield says, ''Strange some 
can not or will not see that in all this (comp. Gen. 
xxv. 23) there is only reference to the election of na- 
tions, not of individuals ; a point on which all the 
fathers up to Augustine (a slight authority, owing to 
his ignorance of the original languages where idioms 
are concerned) and all the most judicious modern com- 
mentators are agreed." Dr. Charles Hodge says, 
' ' With the eighth chapter the discussion of the plan of 
salvation, and its immediate consequences, was brought 
to a close. The consideration of the calling of the 
Gentiles, and the rejection of the Jews, commences 
with the ninth, and extends to the end of the elev- 
enth." Dr. MacKnight says, "Although some pas- 
sages in this chapter which pious and learned men 
have understood of the election and reprobation of 
individuals, are in the foregoing illustration inter- 
preted of the election of nations to be the people of 
God, and to enjoy the advantage of an external reve- 
lation, and of their losing these honorable distinc- 
tions, the reader must not, on that account, suppose 
the author rejects the doctrines of the decree and fore- 



4 Cowles. 



242 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

knowledge of God. These doctrines are taught in 
other passages of Scripture; see Rom. viii. 29." 
Alford says, " It must also be remembered that, what- 
ever inferences, with regard to God's disposal of in- 
dividuals may justly lie from the Apostle's arguments, 
the assertions here made by him are universally 
spoken with a national reference. Of the eternal sal- 
vation or rejection of any individual Jew there is here 
no question." Dr. Schaff in I^ange says, " The doc- 
trine of the predestination of a part of the human 
race to eternal perdition by no means follows from the 
statements of these verses, 6-13." Again, "The 
Apostle is not treating here at all of eter?ial perdition 
and eternal blessedness, but of a temporal preference 
and disregard of nations in the gradual historical de- 
velopment of the plan of redemption, which will 
finally include all (Chap. xi. 25, 32), and hence the 
descendants of Esau, who stand figuratively for all the 
Gentiles." 5 

It is, therefore, reasonably settled that Paul used 
the illustration of the potter in the same sense as did 
Jeremiah ; but this, instead of proving the Calvinist 
right, unmistakably condemns him ; for beyond all 
legitimate controversy, the passage teaches that the 
clay "is a living free agent, the Potter is a wise, im- 
partial divine Reason, and the being made a vessel of 
honor or dishonor is conditioned upon the voluntary 
temper and doing of the agent. Salvation and dam- 
nation depended upon a momentous pivotal if; the 
two alternatives of that if were, ' turn from evil ' and 
salvation ; or, * do evil' and destruction." 6 This must 



s Page 328. 

6 Dr. D. D. Whedon. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



243 



be so. Whatever reference this chapter has to eternal 
salvation must be interpreted according to the primary 
meaning of the prophet. As God deals with nations 
according to their temper or disposition, so does he 
act toward individuals in their eternal acceptance or 
rejection. To deny this is to affirm that a primary 
application is of less importance than a secondary. 
Dr. Howard Crosby is an acceptable minister of the 
Presbyterian Church. The following is his testimony 
concerning the meaning of this so-called Calvinistic 
proof- text. He says, " This text is quoted by many 
as showing that God arbitrarily makes some men for 
heaven and others for hell. The whole of God's 
gospel is thus set aside. He wishes all men to be 
saved (1. Tim. ii. 4). He does not wish any to perish 
(11. Pet. iii. 9). God so loved the world that he gave 
his only begotten Son, that whosoever belie veth in 
him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 
(John iii. 16). He sent his servants to preach the 
gospel to every creature (Mark xvi. 15). Jesus says 
to all, 1 Come unto Me ' (Matt. xi. 28). And yet 
some would have this one text in Rom. ix. 21 over- 
throw the whole tenor of the gospel, as above illus- 
trated. Is it not wiser to imagine a false exegesis here ? 

' ' Let us see what this text means ? The simile of 
the potter is taken from Jer. xviii. 1-10 ; and we must 
go there if we would see the apostle's meaning. In 
that passage the Lord says that he, as a potter, will 
cast away the vessel which was marred under his 
hands and make a new one — that is, he will set aside 
the Jews and establish a Gentile church. The whole 
argument of the apostle concern the rejection of the 
Jews from being the church of God, and has no refer- 



244 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

ence to individual salvation. He shows that God 
narrowed the church seed in Isaac and in Jacob, and 
he can now change it again from Israel to the Gentile 
world ; that there was no obligation to keep the line 
of ordinances in Abraham's seed, and that the conduct 
of Israel, in rejecting Christ, had made it necessary 
for God, after much patient endurance (ver. 22) to cast 
off Israel and form a new church. In the course of 
the argument he answers the objection that God was 
unrighteous, by showing (vs. 14-18) that to Moses, 
who was obedient, he showed mercy, and Pharaoh, 
who was rebellious, he hardened (by letting him 
harden himself). He distributes his mercy and his 
wrath as he will ; but his will is interpreted as dis- 
tinguishing between the obedient and disobedient. 
The potter is referred to, not as from the first ordaining 
a man to dishonor, but as devoting a bad man to dis- 
honor. The figure can not be pressed. The vessels, 
in the making, have a power to resist the potter. The 
Jews resisted God's grace when he would have made 
them to honor, and therefore he made them to dis- 
honor. That is all this text teaches. To read it 
without regarding the apostle's argument in the ninth 
and tenth chapters, and without regarding Jeremiah's 
meaning, from whom the allusion is drawn, is to wrest 
Scripture and make a most horrible and unscriptural 
doctrine — a doctrine which, logically and imperatively, 
makes God the author of sin." 7 

The last class of passages to which we will turn 

7 M The Preacher and Homiletic Monthly,'' 1S81, pp. 350, 351. Article, 
"Light on Important Texts." The question involved in this passage virtu- 
ally settles the whole subject. Considering the position of Dr. Crosby, his 
ability as an exegete, his well-known conscientiousness, his interpretation 
is peculiarly valuable. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



245 



our attention is composed of such texts as speak of the 
non-elect as foreordained to destruction. " Unto you 
therefore which believe he is precious ; but unto them 
which be disobedient, the stone which the builders 
disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even 
to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient ; 
whereunto also they were appointed" (1. Pet. ii. 7, 8). 
" For there are certain men crept in unawares, who 
were before of old ordained to this condemnation ; 
ungodly men, turning the grace of our God unto 
lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and 
our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 4). 

The Arminian finds no trouble with these passages. 
If wicked men will not repent, will not turn to God 
and live, then, like Judas, they shall go to their own 
place. God, foreseeing this, unerringly knowing their 
ultimate choice has eternally rejected, and in this 
sense, foreordained them to destruction. Dr. Thomas 
W. Jenkyns' comments on the passage in Peter are 
admirable. " God exhibits his Son as the foundation 
of salvation to men. In this character ' he is disal- 
lowed of men' — they will not submit to it, but are 
' disobedient ' to the arrangement. As they will not 
comply and obey, they stumble and fall and perish, 
and that according to the ' appointed ' order of the 
provision. Are we from this to infer that they were 
appointed to disobey and stumble ? What ! that they 
were appointed to disallow Christ, and yet be blamed 
and punished for it ? The passage teaches no such 
thing. It is an ' appointment ' of the constitution of 
providence that whosoever will not eat food will die." 8 

8 "The Extent of the Atonement," p. 222. 



CHAPTER V. 



The Foreknowledge of God. How Related 
to His Will. 

" . . . . He is a being, not who computes, but 
who, by the eternal necessity even of his nature, in- 
tuits everything. His foreknowledge does not depend 
on his will, or the adjustment of motives to make us 
will thus or thus, but he foreknows everything first 
conditionally, in the world of possibility, before he 
creates, or determines anything to be, in the world of 
fact. Otherwise, all his purposes would be grounded 
in ignorance, not in wisdom, and his knowledge would 
consist in following after his will, to learn what his 

will has blindly determined If, then, God 

foreknows, or intuitively knows, all that is in the pos- 
sible system and the possible man, without calcula- 
tion, he can have little difficulty, after that, in fore- 
knowing the actual man, who is nothing but the 
possible in the world of possibles, set on foot and 
become actual in the world of actuals. So far, there- 
fore, as the doctrine of Edwards was contrived to sup- 
port the certainty of God's foreknowledge, and lay a 
basis for the systematic government of the world and 
the universal sovereignt}^ of God's purposes, it appears 
to be quite unnecessary." 

— Rev. Horace Bushnell, D. D. 



2.16 



CHAPTER V. 



The Foreknowledge of God. How Related to 
His Will. 

This is the last stronghold of Calvinism. We 
have examined the different positions of this system 
of theology in the light of Scripture and have found 
them radically defective. Calvinists not only con- 
tradict themselves, but they are led to deny the funda- 
mental utterances of that Word which was given to 
man for his spiritual comfort and guidance. Com- 
pelled to forsake the field of limited atonement, infant 
condemnation, faith as a direct gift of God, and repro- 
bation as an act of pure sovereignty, the Calvinist 
has now intrenched himself behind the breastworks of 
Divine Foreknowledge, confidently believing that 
here at least is a citadel which can not possibly be 
taken. This, however, I propose to do, and hence in 
this Chapter I shall endeavor to show that the Calvin- 
istic doctrine of Foreknowledge is not, and can not be 
the doctrine of the Bible. 

SECTION I. 

Is Divine Foreknowledge Possible f 

The term foreknowledge of God refers to the divine 
omniscience of what his creatures will freely do in 
time. It is the knowledge of that which is to be. 

We know events only as they have occurred, or are 

247 



248 C; A WIN ISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

transpiring, whereas, to the divine Mind they already 
exist ; hence he knows them before they actually 
occur. 

Some theologians, however, deny this divine fore- 
knowledge on the ground that its acceptance necessi- 
tates the denial of human freedom and responsibility. 
Thus we are told by Weisse " God knows the future 
in so far as it follows with organic necessity out of the 
past and present, but he does not know it in so far as, 
while resting upon the general ground of this neces- 
sity, it is yet subject to the spontaneity of the intra- 
divine and the extra-divine nature, that is, to the 
freedom of the intra-divine and the extra-divine 
will." 1 

Martensen says: "An unconditional foreknowl- 
edge is unquestionably inconsistent with the freedom 
of creatures in so far as freedom admits of discretionary 
choice ; it unquestionably precludes the undetermined, 
which is in fact inseparable from the notion of a free 
development in time. Only that reality which is per 
se rational and necessary can be the object of an un- 
conditional foreknowledge, but not that reality which 
might have been otherwise than as it is ; for this latter 
can be foreknown only as a possibility, as an event- 
uality." 2 

To the same effect speaks Rothe. ' ' If God infalli- 
bly foreknows with apodictic certainty, all the actions 
of men, then these actions must be absolutely certain 
beforehand ; but (seeing that, as being partially dis- 
cretionary, they can not rest absolutely on inner neces- 
sity ) they could be absolutely certain beforehand only 



1 " Philos. Dogmat." Vol. I. , p. 609. 

2 !' Christl. Dogmat." (2d edition) p. 249. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



249 



through a divine predetermination : but this would not 
only preclude the free self-determination of man, but 
also make God the author of sin. That which in God's 
knowledge stands objectively fixed, can not be for man, 
in his present unperfected state, a matter of free deter- 
mination ; the absolute foreknowing on the part of 
God, of the actions of as yet not perfected personal 
creatures is unavoidably a predetermining of the 
same." 3 

To this class of thinkers belongs Dr. L. D. McCabe. 
While his works, "The Foreknowledge of God, and 
Cognate Themes," and "Divine Nescience of Future 
Contingencies a Necessity," present some original 
features as to the methods of reconciliation, his con- 
clusions substantially agree with those of Rothe and 
Martensen ; his peculiarities will be noticed as we pro- 
ceed. While I can not expect to give an exhaustive 
expose of the different theories against the Arminian 
doctrine of God's foreknowledge, yet a spirit of fair- 
ness constrains me to present a clear outline of the 
doctrine of divine nescience. Rothe' s view is as follows : 
"5. The notion of a divine predetermination of all 
things precludes effectual will-determinations on the 
part of the creature, and hence, renders earnest per- 
sonal effort at such determinations a psychological 
impossibility. 

' ' 6. The traditional makeshift to safeguard creat- 
ural freedom, namely, by saying that God foresees free 
actions as free, not only fails of its purpose, but also 
places God in an absurd relation of dependence on his 

3 "Theological Ethics." Translated by Professor J. P. Ivacroix, to whom 
I am indebted for the extracts from Weisse and Martensen. " Bib. Sacra," 
1875, pp. 138, 149, 150. 



250 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

supposed foreknowledge of the manner in which creat- 
ures will act, in his constructing of his world plan. 

"7. There are two essentially different phases of 
freedom : first, in morally imperfect beings ; second, 
in the morally perfected. The actions of the second 
class can be absolutely foreseen by the Infinite Mind, 
for such beings will always act according to absolute 
right. Given a specific moral environment, and their 
actions will correspond thereto with moral necessity. 
There will no longer be any scope for discretion. They 
will always follow the highest motive. But the actions 
of the first class, so long as they have not as yet 
attained to absolute perfection in kind, are subject to 
subjective discretion or caprice, and hence can only be 
pre-conjectured. 

''8. The formula, that God foreknows future free 
actions as free, involves a self-contradiction. The free, 
in the sense of the discretionarily free, can not in the 
nature of the case be foreknown. 

"9. To predicate of God the non knowing of future 
free creatural actions, is not to limit the divine omnis- 
cience. Even as omnipotence is not an ability to work 
the self-contradictory (e. g., that two units are as many 
as five), so omniscience is not an ability to know the 
per se unknowable. Omniscience knows all possible 
objects of knowledge ; namely, all the past, all the 
present, and all the future so far as it is logically con- 
tained in causes now in operation, and which will not 
be interfered with in the future, — but nothing farther. 

(< 10. To presuppose the divine foreknowledge of 
absolutely everything, sacrifices the freedom of God. 
It implies that all that is to be is already absolutely 
objectively fixed, and hence, that God has absolutely 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 25 1 

chained his own hands from all eternity, having once 
and for all set the universe upon the grooves of neces- 
sary sequence, and having sketched out in an immu- 
table scheme all the exercises of his freedom in which 
he will dare indulge himself in the whole scope of 
eternity. 

" 11. The presupposition of a divine foreknowledge 
from eternity, of absolutely everything, leaves to God, 
during the lapse of the whole sweep of universal his- 
tory, no other role than that of an idle spectator. 

"12. To make the divine world-plan dependent 
upon the foreseen actions of creatures, is to reverse the 
proper relation of dependence between God and the 
creature. This plan is, in this view, not a broad, 
solid road leading through the course of world-history, 
such as the Infinite Mind might have preferred it, but 
it is a narrow, tortuous, oft-interrupted outline, abound- 
ing in special provisions, trap-doors, ambuscades, 
checks, hedges, and other specifics, such as God fore- 
saw would, from time to time, become necessary, in 
that he foresaw that here and there his creatures would 
choose this or that abnormal course of action. 

"13. The only possible method of solving the con- 
tradiction between the traditional form of the doctrine 
of omniscience and the real admission of creatural 
freedom is to modify our conception of the doctrine of 
omniscience in such a manner as that it shall not 
include an absolute knowledge of so much of the 
future as depends on the choice of imperfect moral 
creatures. 

" 14. The religious interest calls for this modifica- 
tion. On the hypothesis that the future fate of all 
men stands already objectively fixed in the foreknowl- 



252 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

edge of God, real and earnest prayer on the part of 
man becomes psychologically impossible." 4 

It must be confessed Dr. Rothe has made the diffi- 
culties of the old view quite formidable. Doubtless 
there are difficulties in all of the so-called methods of rec- 
onciling the omniscience of God with the free actions 
of men ; hence, the question is not, What view pre- 
sents no difficulties ? but, What theory or supposition 
presents the least difficulty ? If, on a fair examination, 
the views of Rothe seem to be more in accordance with 
the truths of reason and Scripture, they deserve, and 
shall have, my cordial acceptance. I will not presume 
to think that my observations on this perplexing 
subject will prove satisfactory to all readers ; but I 
would respectfully ask a careful consideration of the 
following strictures on the solution of Dr. Rothe. 

(1) To what extent does Dr. Rothe predicate moral 
perfection of free human creatures ? 

Suppose we grant the truthfulness of the seventh 
proposition that the divine foresight may be affirmed 
of the actions of the morally perfected, the question 
instantly presents itself, At what stage of the Chris- 
tian life is a person morally perfected ? So far as I 
can learn Dr. Rothe does not inform us : we can, there- 
fore, only tell approximately. Doubtless if there is 
such a thing as moral perfection — in the sense of Dr. 
Rothe, where a being "will always act according to 
absolute right" — it is attained at different ages, 
according to the person's native disposition, circum- 
stances and opportunities. But in all seriousness is 
there such a moral perfection ? We have heard much 



4 A resume oi'Rothe's view by Prof. I^acroix " Bib. Sacra," 1875. pp. 
155-157. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE . 



253 



of "Christian Perfection," "Holiness," " Sanctifica- 
tion," not only from the many works published by the 
Methodist Episcopal church but also from the noble 
men of Oberlin, but I have yet to see or hear of a 
work of any recognized authority teaching a moral 
perfection, possible or actual, in which " beings will 
always act according to absolute right." Beyond all 
controversy, if these words mean anything they un- 
qualifiedly assert that after the attainment of this 
moral perfection the soul never sins, — no, not in the 
slightest degree, otherwise he would not always act 
according to absolute right. The following testimony 
is from Dr. J. T. Crane who is in a position to know 
whereof he affirms : ' ' Though faith may never 
utterly fail, nor love grow cold, nor obedience be for- 
gotten, nor devotion die, yet the most faithful, devo- 
tional, and obedient child of God will humble himself 
in the dust at the remembrance of his infinite obliga- 
tions to his Creator and Redeemer, and the poor re- 
turns which he is making. Thus, if we assume that 
the intent is right and the purpose all-controlling, the 
service will be imperfect, marred in its character by 
lack of knowledge and error of judgment, and de- 
ficient in degree ; and sinless obedience, in the abso- 
lute sense of the term, is utterty impossible 

Wesley repudiated the doctrine, declaring that he 
never used the phrase ' sinless perfection ' lest he 
should ' seem to contradict himself. ' He steadfastly 
held that the holiest of men need Christ to atone for 
their omissions, shortcomings, and mistakes in judg- 
ment and practice, all of which he pronounces ' devia- 
tions from the perfect law.' " 5 

5 " Meth. Quarterly Review." 1878, p. 692. 



254 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

President Jas. H. Fairchild in speaking of the doc- 
trine of sanctification at Oberlin remarks, "There is 
no promise in God's Word upon which a believer can 
plant himself in present faith, and secure his stability 
in faith, and obedience for all the future, so that we 
can say of him that he is permanently sanctified." 6 

Where is the Old, or New Testament saint of whom 
it may be said, he had attained unto that moral per- 
fection that he always acted according to absolute 
right ? To be sure, " Enoch walked with God and he 
was not, for God took him." But if this was a divine 
seal of his moral perfection, it should equally apply 
in the translation of Elijah, who, while one of the 
noblest prophets was somewhat distrustful of God's 
care. The truth is, this moral perfection does not, 
and can not exist on the earth ; hence, according to 
Rothe's dictum, it is not to be affirmed of the divine 
foreknowledge. 

(2) Rothe's solution does not escape the same 
difficulties which he predicates of the accepted theory. 
If this objection is true, his entire argument is seri- 
ously impaired. In my opinion such is the fact. It 
is susceptible of verification in three different ways, 
nainely : (a) In proposition six we are told that to 
say God foresees free actions as free, ' ' places God in 
absurd relation of dependence on his supposed fore- 
knowledge of the manner in which creatures will act, 
in his constructing his world-plan." Beyond all dis- 
pute, the Arminian theology conceives the divine fore- 
knowledge as the ground of God's moral government. 
The Arminian affirms that in the natural world God has 
acted and does act independently ; but that so far as he 



6 " Cong'l Quarterly," 1876, p. 249. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



2 55 



is related to moral beings, his moral government is 
conditioned on the free acts of his creatures. As I 
understand Dr. Rothe he calls this " absurd." But 
let us see if his view is not liable to the same charge ? 
By "world-plan" must be meant the whole plan of 
God : this plan, so far as it concerns moral beings is, 
or is not conditioned upon the free acts of moral creat- 
ures. If unconditioned, we have the doctrine of 
absolute determination which forever precludes all idea 
of moral freedom. This our respected author can not 
accept : he is an earnest advocate of moral freedom : 
Consequently the ' ' world-plan ' ' in its moral relations, 
is conditioned. Yes, to be sure : this is granted by 
Rothe : ' ' This world-plan settles immutably the 
world-goal, as well as also the organic series of logic- 
ally necessary stages and development crises through 
which the world can be brought to this goal. More 
than this is not predetermined. Most emphatically the 
individual self-determination of personal creatures is 
not infringed upon by the divine world-plan." 7 
Hence the conclusion is irresistible that even on the 
theory of Dr. Rothe, God is dependent on the free 
actions of human creatures. The fact is the same, 
while the method is different. Nay, of the two sup- 
positions let the reader judge which is the more absurd. 
Dr. Rothe says, God does foresee some — the actions of 
those morally perfected, who always act according to 
absolute right. Is he not so far forth dependent? 
Dr. Rothe says that God can, and probably does closely 
calculate on what the free actions of men will be. Is 
he not so far forth dependent ? Again he says, ' ' How- 
ever fortuitous and capricious may be the play of self- 



7 " Bib. Sacra," 1875, p. 141. 



256 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

determining creatural causes in the world, nevertheless 
God (to whom nothing unprovided for or surprising 
can happen) constantly embraces with his all -compre- 
hending vision, the whole complex web of individual 
volitions, beholds its bearing upon the plan of his 
world-government, and has it, at every moment and 
at every point in the unlimited power of his omnipo- 
tence, so that he can irresistibly turn and direct it, as 
a whole, as is at any time required by its teleological 
relation to his unchangeable world-plan." 8 Dr. Rothe 
agrees with the Arminian that the moral government 
of God is conditioned on the free actions of human 
creatures : but thinks a partial foresight, a close cal- 
culation, and an infinite watchfulness and unlimited 
power, which can not be surprised nor overcome, less 
absurd than an unerring foresight which at once does 
away with all calculations, and at the same time pos- 
sesses all the necessary watchfulness and power, (b) 
So far as Rothe grants any divine foresight, and so far 
as the Infinite Mind can calculate, in the same propor- 
tion is his view liable to the same charge which he 
makes against the accepted theory in proposition ten, 
viz., " To presuppose the divine forknowledge of abso- 
lutely everything, sacrifices the freedom of God." 
This is evident at a glance. If the freedom of God is 
sacrificed by his foreknowing everything, then it is 
sacrificed in the exact proportion as he foresees the 
actions of those morally perfected, and also as he can 
make a close calculation of what free creatures will do. 

(c) The same line of argument is legitimate con- 
cerning proposition eleven : viz., that the Arminian 
doctrine ' ' leaves to God, during the lapse of the 



8 p. 141 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



257 



whole sweep of universal history, no other role than 
that of an idle spectator." Supposing this to be true, 
and supposing that the number of those morally per- 
fected, is any perceptible percentage of the human 
race, then so far forth, God is an idle spectator. Then 
so far forth as the Infinite Mind can calculate what 
the actions of men will be, he is also an idle spectator. 
In a word, when Dr. Rothe confesses that God has 
some foresight, and also possesses a marvelous power 
of calculation, he has exposed himself to the same line 
of argument with which he seeks to demolish the 
accepted doctrine. 

(3) Dr. Rothe' s objections against the Arminian 
doctrine are not consistent. In the eleventh proposi- 
tion we are told that the accepted doctrine of divine 
foreknowledge, ' ' leaves to God, during the lapse of 
the whole sweep of universal history, no other role 
than that of an idle spectator" : but in the following 
proposition, we are informed that the same doctrine 
necessitates ' ' a narrow, tortuous, oft-interrupted out- 
line, abounding in special provisions, trap-doors, am- 
buscades, checks, hedges, and other specifics, such as 
God foresaw would, from time to time, become neces- 
sary, in that he foresaw that here and there his creat- 
ures would choose this or that abnormal course of 
action." One of these charges must be false ; for 
surely to "interrupt" anything, to have "special 
provisions," to use " trap-doors, ambuscades, checks, 
hedges, and other specifics" as occasion required is 
not to be " an idle spectator ' ' ; but 

(4) Dr. Rothe is mistaken in thinking that the 
Arminian doctrine legitimately leads to the conclu- 
sion that God is an idle spectator. Arminians believe 



258 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

that of all possible things God has chosen the best. 
That in the sphere of morals he has adopted such 
measures as will ultimately secure the highest happi- 
ness of the greatest possible number. That knowing 
by his unerring foresight what his creatures will freely 
do and become in time, he has arranged all things 
accordingly : hence, in a certain sense which is emi- 
nently praiseworthy, God does interrupt, or change 
the current of the world's history — by special provis- 
ions, or checks : not that his plan of the world's 
government is changed, but that these changes are 
strictly in accordance with the foreseen actions of men 
actually occurring in time : in the elucidation of this 
thought Dr. Whedon has forcibly said, "Let us, as a 
theodicic illustration, suppose that a perfectly good 
and wise prince, absolute in authority, rules over as 
many tribes and nations as Persian Xerxes ; the large 
share of whom are hostile to each other, and desper- 
ately depraved. His plan is not to destroy, nor to 
interfere with their personal freedom, but so to arrange 
their relations to each other as that he may make them 
mutual checks upon each other's wickedness : that 
the ambition of one may opportunely chastise the out- 
rage of another ; that those wrongs which will exist 
may be limited and overruled ; and that even the 
crimes which they will commit may further his plans 
of reformation, gradual perfectability, and highest 
sum total of good. If it is seen that a traitor will 
assassinate, be the victim in his way one whose death 
will be a public benefit ; if brothers (as Joseph's) 
will envy their brother, let their victim thereby so 
conduct himself as that he shall be the saviour of great 
nations. If a proud prince will wanton in his pride, 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



259 



so nerve him up, vitally and intellectively, as that his 
wantonness shall spread great truths through the 
tribes of the empire. If a warlike king will conquer 
let the nation exposed to his invasions be one whose 

chastisement will be a lesson to the world If 

we may suppose that he was endued with a more than 
mortal foresight ; if we may imagine that he had a 
plan, partly a priori, and partly based on foreseen 
deeds of his subjects, we might then conceive that he 
could take all the passions, crimes, bold enterprises, 
and wild movements which he foresaw men would ex- 
hibit, into his account, not as by him determined, but as 
cognized parts within his stupendous scheme of good. 

1 1 He would so collocate men and things into a whole 
plan, that their mutual play would work out the best 
results. And if his wisdom, as well as his power, is 
infinite, and his existence is eternal, then the entire 
scheme could be comprehended within his prescient 
glance in all its grandest and minutest parts, with all 
their causations, freedoms, and dependencies, and so 
comprehended that his predeterminations touch prop- 
erly his own acts, leaving the free acts to the self-orig- 
ination of free agents. And this may be, in the great 
whole, in spite of permitted wrong, the best possible 
system. We should then, in vision, behold all beings, 
however free, spontaneously, uncompulsorily, without 
command or decree, moving in harmony with his out- 
lines of events, which is but the transcript of their 
free actions, and by their ve^iniquities and abomina- 
tions, without any countenance from him or any 
excuse to themselves, working results they never 
dreamed, but which are in his plan." 9 

9 " Will." pp. 294, 296. 



260 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

(5) Is such a view of God's foreknowledge possi- 
ble ? This is the crucial question of the whole sub- 
ject. If Dr. Rothe can not sustain his position at this 
point, his entire argument must be abandoned : he can 
not accept the prevalent theory because ' ' If God in- 
fallibly foreknows with apodictic certainty, all the 
actions of men, then these actions must be absolutely 
certain beforehand : but (seeing that, as being par- 
tially discretionary, they can not rest absolutely on 
inner necessity) they could be absolutely certain be- 
forehand only through a divine predetermination ; but 
this would not only preclude the free self-determina- 
tion of man, but also make God the author of sin. 
That which in God's knowledge stands objectively 
fixed, can not be for man, in his present unperfected 
state, a matter of free determination ; the absolute 
foreknowing on the part of God of the actions of as 
yet not perfected personal creatures is unavoidably a 
predetermining of the same." 1 

Analyzing this argument, we find the following 
points: viz., (a) If future actions are foreknown with ap- 
odictic certainty, they are absolutely certain, (b) But 
as they are partly discretionary, this absolute certainty 
can not rest on any inner necessity — such as exists in the 
morally perfected — and hence this certainty must result 
from a divine predetermination, (c) This in turn neces- 
sitates the conclusion that man is not capable of self- 
determination, and that God is the author of sin. 

Consequently, the entire argument depends on the 
first affirmation that "if future actions are foreknown 
with apodictic certainty they are absolutely certain." 
But what are we to understand by the words " ab- 



1 Page 149. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



26l 



solutely certain " ? Granting that Dr. Rothe's meaning 
is correct, I think his conclusions will necessarily follow. 
Since Edwards wrote his celebrated treatise the term 
"necessity" has been abandoned by most, if not all Cal- 
vinists. The ' ' certainty of all future events ' ' has long 
been the motto of this school of thinkers. But as Ar- 
minians have readily granted the pure certainty of all 
free actions, not a little of the Calvinistic literature is 
enveloped in a blinding ambiguity. There are differ- 
ent meanings of the word certain. Says Archbishop 
Whately, " Certain, in its primary sense, is applied 
(according to its etymology) to the state of a person's 
mind, denoting any one's full and complete convic- 
tion ; and generally, though not always, implying 
that there is sufficient ground for such conviction. It 
was thence easily transferred metonymically to the 
truths or events respecting which this conviction is 
rationally entertained." 2 With the great body of 
Arminians I readily grant that the foreseen actions of 
free agents are absolutely certain in the sense that they 
will occur as God foresees them : but this does not 
prove that they must so occur, or that they are the 
result of a divine predetermination. It is, however, 
with this idea of ' ' absolutely certain ' ' that the argu- 
ment of Rothe has any relevancy. He grants that 
some actions may be absolutely foreknown without 
any divine predetermination. Of the morally per- 
fected, we are told their actions "can be absolutely 
foreseen by the Infinite Mind." Hence the mere fore- 
knowing of an event does not affect it in the least. 
On Rothe's supposition some free actions are abso- 

2 " For a full discussion of this term see Whedon's "Will." Also Bled- 
soe's " Will." 



262 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

lately certain, unconditionally certain, and therefore, 
objectively fixed in the Infinite Mind, without any 
predetermination. Very well. If some free actions 
can be foreknown, then so far as the divine knowledge 
of them is concerned, all may be thus foreknown, 
without any predetermination. That is, I desire to 
establish the point that foreknowing is not the same 
as, nor does it necessitate predetermining. Of course 
Dr. Rothe denies that the discretionarily free can be 
foreknown : I do not wish to beg the very question in 
dispute, but to demonstrate to the reader that Dr. 
Rothe does not teach the doctrine that foreknowing is 
identical with predetermining. 

Of all the possible volitions of free agents, there 
will be a particular one put forth by the agent at any 
particular moment. This would be true if God did 
not exist : the soul is of a certain temperament : is liv- 
ing in definitely ascertained environments : these serve 
as the occasional cause — not the efficient cause — for 
volitional action : the soul may or may not choose, 
according to the highest dictates of wisdom, but it will 
certainly choose one out of all possible ways. Now 
why can not the Infinite Mind see that which will 
actually be ? Because, says Dr. Rothe, if the volition 
is infallibly foreknown, it must be absolutely certain : 
and if absolutely certain in the discretionarily free, it 
is because of -the divine predetermination. Why? 
Because a thing can not be foreknown unless prede- 
termined ? No, by no means, for as we have seen Dr. 
Rothe acknowledges that some free actions are fore- 
known. The reason is simply this : that if the actions 
of all men are absolutely foreknown, they are abso- 
lutely certain ; and hence, according to Dr. Rothe, the 



AND MAN'S MORAIv NATURE. 263 

certainty is the result of a divine predetermination. 
This, however, by no means follows : for a thing may 
be absolutely certain and yet be entirely free, i. e. , the 
foreseen actions of the morally perfected. True, Dr. 
Rothe affirms that these occur by an ' ' inner necessity, ' ' 
a universal law of right by which God can foresee 
their actions. But I ask what is meant by this ' ' inner 
necessity " ? Is it such a necessity that deprives the 
morally perfected from doing otherwise ? I can not be- 
lieve that Dr. Rothe ever thus regarded it. In that 
case they would cease to be free, and hence, responsible 
agents. This absolute certainty, then, which is pred- 
icated of the actions of the morally perfected, is a will 
be, and not a must be. This is all the absolute cer- 
tainty there is concerning the foreseen actions of all 
men. They are absolutely certain in the sense that 
they will infallibly occur as they have been foreseen, 
not because they must come in that way, nor because 
of any predetermination ; but because the Infinite 
Mind unerringly sees things as they are. Hence, I 
am led to think Dr. Rothe much mistaken in affirming 
that the declaration God sees free actions as free is a 
makeshift. Surely it is not so intended by those who 
employ it : to them it simply expresses what they re- 
gard as eternal truth. We might imagine a student 
of theology examining the evidence of God's exist- 
ence. He maybe told by some that God's eternal ex- 
istence can not be proved, because it is a matter of 
intuition : that the attempt to prove it, is just so far a 
work of supererogation, involving a fundamental in- 
consistency. In his ignorance of the peculiar consti- 
tution of his friend's mind, in his zeal for proving all 
things, that he may hold fast to that which is good, 



264 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD S WORD 

he might say, This is a makeshift. So far from solv- 
ing any difficulty, the matter is made worse because I 
am told the subject is beyond logical demonstration. 
But this is unjust to the intuitional idea of God. As 
used by its advocates it is infinitely removed from any 
subterfuge or makeshift. In like manner, when the 
Arminian says that the Infinite Mind sees the future 
free actions of men as free, he simply affirms that 
which to him must be true. 

To say that it can not be true because we can not 
see how God can thus foreknow, is to substitute 
ignorance for argument. Dr. Rothe attempts to dem- 
onstrate that it can not be, but it is by confounding a 
will be with a must be. 

(6) Dr. Rothe is unequivocally condemned by 
Scripture. The following passages should be carefully 
considered. ' ' And I am sure that the King of Egypt 
will not let you go, no not by a mighty hand " 
(Exodus iii. 19). "And if thou say in thine heart, 
How shall we know the word which the Eord hath not 
spoken ? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the 
Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is 
the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the 
prophet hath spoken it presumptuously : thou shalt 
not be afraid of him " (Deut. xviii. 21, 22 ). "Now, 
therefore, write ye this song for you, and teach it to 
the children of Israel ; put it in their mouths, that 
this song may be a witness for me against the children 
of Israel. For when I shall have brought them into the 
land which I sware unto their fathers, that floweth 
with milk and honey ; and they shall have eaten and 
filled themselves, and waxen fat ; then will they turn 
unto other gods and serve them, and provoke me and 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 265 

break my covenant. And it shall come to pass, when 
many evils and troubles are befallen them, that this 
song shall testify against them as a witness, for it shall 
not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed ; for I 
know their imagination which they go about, even 
now, before I have brought them into the land which 
I sware" (Deut. xxxi. 19-21). "Thus saith the 
Lord God, It shall come to pass, that at the same time 
shall things come unto thy mind, and thou shalt think 
an evil thought" (Ezek. xxxviii. 10). " I have de- 
clared the former things from the beginning ; and they 
went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them. I 
did them suddenly ; and they came to pass. Because 
I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron 
sinew, and thy brow brass ; I have even from the 
beginning declared it unto thee ; before it came to 
pass I shewed it thee ; lest thou shouldest say mine 
idol hath done them ; and my graven image, and my 
molten image hath commanded them" (Isa.xlviii. 3-5). 
" Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new 
things do I declare ; before they spring forth I tell you 
of them" (Isa. xlii. 9). "Remember the former 
things of old : for I am God, and there is none else ; 
I am God, and there is none like me. Declaring the 
end from the beginning, and from ancient times the 
things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall 
stand, and I will do all my pleasure ' ' (Isa. xlvi. 9, 10). 
" And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are 
accomplished, that I will punish the King of Babylon, 
and that nation, saith the Lord, for their iniquity, and 
the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpet- 
ual desolations " (Jer. xxv. 12). " In the first yeal 
of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the 



266 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

Medes, which was made King over the realm of the 
Chaldeans ; in the first year of his reign, I Daniel un- 
derstood by books the number of the years, whereof 
the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, 
that he would accomplish seventy years in the 
desolations of Jerusalem" (Dan. ix. i, 2). "And, 
behold, there came a man of God out of Judah 
by the word of the Lord unto Bethel ; and Jero- 
boam stood by the altar to burn incense. And he 
cried against the altar in the word of the Lord, and 
said, O altar, thus saith the Lord ; Behold a child 
shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by 
name ; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the 
high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's 
bones shall be burnt upon thee " (1. Kings xiii. 
1,2). This should be read in connection with the 
following, which occurred over three hundred years 
after its prediction. " And as Josiah turned himself, 
he spied the sepulchres that were there in the mount, 
and sent, and took the bones out of the sepulchres, 
and burned them upon the altar, and polluted it, ac- 
cording to the word of the Lord, which the man of 
God proclaimed, who proclaimed these words " (11. 
Kings, xxiii. 16). Many more passages might be 
adduced. The Bible is permeated with the spirit of 
prophecy. 

Generously allowing full scope for the thought of 
Professor Lacroix that in all the prophecies of the 
Bible there is some degree of indefiniteness ; and fairly 
granting this may plausibly account for some prophe- 
cies, yet it is impossible to bring all of the many pro- 
phetic utterances of the Scriptures within the range of 
this theory. For, as Dr. Keith has well declared, 



AND MAN'S MORAIv NATURE. 



.267 



" Many of the prophecies are as explicit and direct as 
it is possible that they could have been." 

After elucidating Dr. Rothe's view of prophecy, 
Professor Lacroix says, "But another hypothesis will 
be more satisfactory to many. It is this. God not 
only surveys through the pregnant actualities of the 
present, the general scope of the future, but he also, 
as occasion requires, makes use of individuals — kings, 
military chieftains, etc., — as passive (and in so far, 
not morally acting) instruments of his purposes. 
Compare the cases of Pharaoh, Balaam, Jonah, etc. 
That is, he providentially brings so many and such 
strong motives to bear upon them, that their actions 
fall, so to speak, for the time being, under the law of 
cause and effect ; so that he can thus at any time, in 
the fulfilling of a specific purpose, bring about a speci- 
fic event, or precipitate a general crisis. Thus the 
possibility of definite prophecies is fully given, and 
the field yet left entirely free for the doctrine of the 
non-foreknowledge of the future volitions of imperfect 
free creatures. ' ' 4 

This is the doctrine of Dr. McCabe as promulgated 
in his first work, " The Foreknowledge of God." I 
gladly testify to Dr. McCabe' s ability and reverent 
spirit. If his position is not generally accepted, it will 
be the fault of the theory and not of its defender. He 
divides the kingdoms of God into Nature, Providence, 
Grace and Glory. The last-named kingdom refers to 
the life of the redeemed in heaven, and is therefore 
ruled out of the present discussion. Moral freedom 
and responsibility are conceived as belonging only to 
the kingdom of grace. "The principle, therefore, 



*i " Bib. Sacra." 1875, p. 160. 



268 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

that controls in the kingdom of grace is radically 
different from that which obtains in the kingdoms oi 
nature, providence and glory. . . . When we ascend 
to the high realms of free grace and human freedom, 
and accountability for eternal destinies, a new factor is 
forced upon us, and will not disappear from our vision, 
however incoherent our reasonings and blinding our 
prejudices." In prophecy God "overrides the law of 
liberty, just as he overrides the law of material forces 
in miracles." "All he would need to do, even in an 
extreme case, would be to bring controlling influences 
to bear upon his (man's) sensibilities, to put his will 
under the law of cause and effect, to make his choices 
certain, in order to foreknow with entire accuracy the 
whole process and final result." 5 As there are no 
prophecies concerning the betrayal of the Saviour by 
Judas, as the Lord Jesus did not know that this dis- 
ciple " would certainly develop into the character and 
reach the ignominious end that he finally did," the 
betrayer was morally responsible and guilty. "But 
while we maintain that it is impossible for Omniscience 
to foresee with definite and absolute certainty the 
choices of free agents when they act under the law of 
liberty, we nevertheless believe that God can in mul- 
titudes of cases, perhaps inmost, jud^e very accurately 
as to what is most likely to take l ji ue, in given con- 
templated circumstances." 6 

Dr. McCabe's fundamental positions are now be- 
fore the reader. Let us notice some of their necessary 
conclusions. (i) Like Dr. Rothe's theory, Dr. 
McCabe's postulate involves self-contradictions. In 



5 Pages 6i, 62, 30, 42, 43. 

6 Pages 100, 153. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



269 



Chaps, xxiv. — xxvni. the supposed inconsistencies of 
God's absolute foreknowledge of future free actions are 
forcibly stated. The ' ( hypothesis that foresees all the 
actions of free agents makes his affirmations, dealings, 
promises and threatenings appear most inconsistent." 
" No consideration whatever could justify infinite 
goodness in creating a soul that God foreknew would 
be wretched and suffer forever." " Foreknowledge 
would prevent proper states of feeling in the Infinite 
Mind." It makes, " Love, hate, approval, disapproval 
admiration, contempt, and every variety of feeling, 
corresponding to every successive variety of my char- 
acter from birth to death, exist in him at the same 
instant." There are many more objections against 
the absolute prescience of God, but I have quoted 
enough to show their general character. A little 
reflection will demonstrate their serious conflict with 
Dr. McCabe's admission that " God can in multitudes 
of cases, perhaps in most, judge very accurately as to 
what is most likely to take place in given contem- 
plated circumstances." Far be it from me to raise a 
false issue. I do not wish to misinterpret Dr. McCabe 
nor to press his words beyond their legitimate mean- 
ing. My criticism is this. If the above objections 
are valid against absolute foreknowledge, they must 
also be legitimate against any foreknowledge. The 
issue is not of mode, but of the fact that God does or 
does not perfectly or partially know future free actions. 
If God can judge " very accurately " in most cases, he 
can not be wholly ignorant of what his creatures will 
freely do, and therefore, he must have some knowl- 
edge of their final destiny. So far as this is true, 
Dr. McCabe does not escape his own objections. (2) 



270 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD*S WORD 

This is equally true of his postulate that freedom and 
responsibility belong only to the kingdom of grace. 
He earnestly contends against fatalism. Affirms " that 
the dread system of necessity is based upon the 
assumption of universal prescience." Chapter x. is 
devoted to the elucidation of this proposition : he 
declares ' ' No one can have a distinct and complete 
idea of freedom who embraces fatalism." 

But notwithstanding these bold assertions, Dr. 
McCabe's entire work is based on this "necessity." 
His idea of prophecy presupposes that the human 
will is ' ' brought under the law of cause and effect ' ' ; 
hence, God can use man "as an instrument in his 
hands. He can make use of him as easily as he can 
make use of fire, water, light, air, sun, moon, or stars. 
Hence, if God desired a certain providential work to 
be accomplished five hundred years hence, he could 
predict it with absolute certainty. All that would be 
necessary would be to influence the will of some one 
then living with the requisite intensity to secure a 
consenting volition, or, as in many cases, an uncon- 
scious instrument. The volitions of such an agent 
would be necessary and foreseen, because forefixed." 7 
As the spirit of prophecy permeates the Old Testa- 
ment, as it forms an important element in the Gospels 
and Epistles it must be confessed that according to 
this theory fatalism reigns supreme over no inconsid- 
erable portion of human activities. Dr. McCabe seeks 
to prove human freedom. How is it accomplished ? 
By affirming that in countless instances man is not 
free, that his will is brought under the law of cause 
and effect. If this is a satisfactory solution of the 

7 Pages 39, 40. 



AND MAN'S MORAI, NATURE. 



271 



problem, I certainly admire the ease with which it is 
demonstrated. But (3) Dr. McCabe's position logic- 
ally necessitates the conclusion that God is the author 
of sin. Beyond all controversy some one must be 
responsible for the official acts of Pharaoh, Cyrus and 
other prominent characters of history. If the actors 
are not responsible because of the strong motives 
brought before and upon them, then we must look to 
Him who is said to be the author of these influences. 
In this case we shall have the perplexing problem 
solved with the following results : Some men are only 
partially free : so far forth as their actions follow the 
law of cause and effect, God is the author. It avails 
nothing to say that God secures the results through 
satanic or human agencies. Not only is the original 
impulse from God, but Dr. McCabe affirms that the 
act or event is according to the divine purpose. This 
is clearly illustrated by the history of Pharaoh. Dr. 
McCabe says God ' ' could say to Moses, ' I am sure 
the King of Egypt will not let you go. ' For as Pha- 
raoh had sinned away his day of grace, God could 
easily cause his will to come under the law of cause 
and effect, by permitting Satan and evil spirits to 
come in upon him ' like a flood, ' as a prophet expresses 
it." Dr. McCabe seems to forget the real issue in this 
ancient controversy. It is not whether Pharaoh had 
or had not sinned away his day of grace. It is 
whether the king will or will not let the people go. 
The different plagues were brought upon the stubborn 
king because he would not obey the voice of the great 
I Am. But if Dr. McCabe is right, we must conclude 
that God did not wish Pharaoh to obey — did not really 
mean what he said — and then punished the king for 



272 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

carrying out the divine intention. (4) Dr. McCabe's 
hypothesis concerning Peter's denial, is untenable. 
Speaking of the Saviour's knowledge of Peter and of 
the denial, he says, " He saw it necessary to allow the 
will of Peter to be so tempted by demoniacal spirits 
that he could not withstand their assaults. With the 
best and most benign ends in view, he suffered him 
then to be ' tempted above that he was able to bear. ' 
Christ could foreknow and foretell the act of denial, 
because he knew that Peter's will would be so over- 
borne by temptational influences that it would move 
as it was moved upon, and thus act, though consent- 
ingly, under unconscious constraint." Then we are 
to understand that Peter could not help denying his 
Lord. Certainly, for has not Dr. McCabe distinctly 
affirmed that the disciple could not withstand the 
temptation of the evil spirits? But wishing to put 
this issue beyond all chance of misunderstanding, I 
quote the following : ' ' For, if one is not to blame for 
not rising up when a mountain is upon him, neither 
can he be called to account for not achieving a moral 
character when temptational influences out of all due 
proportion to his resources of volitional energy were 
allowed to overpower him." "The moment divine 
or diabolical influences are brought to bear on an in- 
dividual will, which are out of exact proportion to its 
strength of resistance, the will loses its freedom and 
comes under the power of the same law that rules 
material forces. " 1 ' Under the influence of extraneous 
power the human will may and does act ; but the act, 
not being that of a free agent, can not be held culpa- 
ble, since, as we have before remarked, it is only when 
the will acts under the law of liberty, possessing its 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



273 



power of contrary choice, that its acts can have a 
moral character, or that its possessor can act as an ac- 
countable being." This is sufficiently strong and 
explicit. But how does it stand the test of Scripture ? 
' ' Weighed in the balance and found wanting ' ' must 
be the verdict the moment we see the Master's sad 
face turned toward Peter as they sat by the fire in the 
house of the high priest. ' ' Fundamentally false ' ' 
must be the answer, as we see Peter leaving the place 
and know of his bitter weeping. The facts of Peter's 
restoration are meaningless if they do not signify that 
his denials and profanity were sinful, and therefore 
preventable. This is admitted by Dr. McCabe when 
he seeks to palliate Peter's sin. "But that act of 
denial, though objectively so heinous, was subject- 
ively no more sinful than the sinful tempers, purposes, 
and affinities which Jesus then saw struggling for 
victory in the regenerated, but yet unsanctified, soul 
of Peter. Once more does Dr. McCabe miss the real 
issue. I do not propose, nor is it our province, to tell 
the exact degree of Peter's sin. Enough for me to 
know that it was very sinful, contrary to the desire 
of the Master, and should have been prevented. 
Many of the texts adduced by Dr. McCabe as illus- 
trating Peter's sinless fall — 1. Kings xxii. 20-22; 
Judges ix. 23 ; 1. Sam. xvi. 14 — are easily explained 
without resorting to this more than questionable 
method. 8 

(5.) Dr. McCabe' s doctrine of human liberty is 
fallacious and pernicious. His concessions to neces- 
sitarians are unfortunate. If they were generally 
adopted the best interests of society would be seriously 



8 See Part II.. Ch. IV., Sec. 6 



274 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

imperiled. The vast majority of men think, feel, 
and act as if they were free agents and therefore 
responsible : but according to the theory now under 
consideration there are innumerable instances where 
their liberty is suppressed and they become irrespon- 
sible. Like Peter, they have no idea of the divine 
intention : they commit that which they think is- sinful, 
feel guilty for it and often repent with bitter tears ; 
but it is a psychological delusion ; as Iyord Karnes has 
said, "Though man in truth is a necessary, agent, yet 
this being concealed from him, he acts with the con- 
viction of being a free agent. ' ' Bailey has tersely put 
it as follows : 

" Free will is but necessity in play, 
The clattering of the golden reins which guide 
The thunder-footed coursers of the sun ; 
And thus with man, 

To God he is but working out his will." 

The fact is that man's moral nature fundamentally 
condemns Dr. McCabe's hypothesis. If our moral 
convictions demand a belief in human freedom, we are 
free, or else God has made us to believe a lie. 

Moreover, if God thus uses his creatures for the 
performance of that which seems but is not sinful, by 
what methods shall human justice be secured? So 
far as possible human laws should reflect the divine 
will : If a wretch like President Garfield's assassin is 
overpowered by temptational influences, thereby be- 
coming a necessary agent in the hands of his Creator, 
upon what grounds shall he be tried and executed? 
By what means are we to know that he was not a 
necessitated agent ? In future crimes how shall we 
discriminate between the heavenly and earthly con- 
stituted perpetrators ? 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURK. 



275 



Dr. McCabe's theory that God tempts— through 
Satanic influences — is antagonistic to the teaching of 
Jas. i. 13. He also misinterprets 1. Cor. x. 13, which 
declares the universal procedure of the Father of 
mercies that no one will be tempted above that which 
he is able to bear. As Dr. L,. P. Hickok has truly 
said, " Not only has the man the native powers of free 
agency whereby the spirit may control the sense and 
hold every appetite and passion in subjection to rea- 
son, however strongly these may be influenced by 
temptation, but, beyond this, special spiritual help is 
graciously offered to every tempted soul." 9 

Dr. McCabe's arguments to show that Judas was 
not the subject of prophecy are quite plausible. I 
question his interpretation of John vi. 64, and Acts 
i. 16. Zechariah xi. 12,13 m ust have some meaning 
It is universally conceded that this prophet uttered 
many predictions of Christ and his kingdom. Until 
a better interpretation can be obtained the vast major- 
ity of biblical scholars will refer this passage to Judas. 
But for the sake of the argument I am willing to grant 
all that Dr. McCabe claims for the betrayer. It is 
also freely admitted that the doctrine of divine fore- 
knowledge is not without its difficulties. But Dr. 
McCabe greatly exaggerates their number and cogency. 
The proposition that a " Belief in divine foreknowl- 
edge depresses the energies of the soul," is contra- 
dicted by the remarkable growth of that body of 
Christians of which Dr. McCabe is an honored mem- 
ber. That it depresses the energies of some natures is 
because they insist that foreknowledge is equivalent to 



s" Bib. Sacra." 1873, p. 666. " Temptation No Excuse for Transgres- 
sion." 



276 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

foreordination. But the vast majority of Arniinians 
are of a different opinion, whose faith is demonstrated 
by their abundant works. 

In concluding Chapter xiv. — " Foreknowledge In- 
comprehensible " — Dr. McCabe says, "Until the 
advocates of universal prescience can present some- 
thing besides dogmatic assertion in its support, the 
writer must remain standing respectfull}- before them 
in the attitude of a perplexed but devout questioner. ' ' 
Very well. But why so much argument to silence 
mere dogmatism? The truth is, when Dr. McCabe 
shall have formulated a doctrine of nescience self-con- 
sistent and agreeing with the fundamental postulates 
of religion his opponents will consider the advisability 
of a capitulation. 

In this connection it is proper to notice the able 
article on ' ' Recent Theories of the Divine Foreknowl- 
edge," by Rev. W. H. Cobb, " Bib. Sacra," Oct., 1883. 
The views of Rothe, McCabe, Dorner, and Whedon 
are analyzed and classified. His main position will 
be considered in subsequent pages. In concluding 
this section I will briefly note our agreements and 
differences. ( 1 ) We agree in the doctrine of divine 
foresight as taught by the Scriptures. Dr. Cobb sa3^s, 
1 ' But the Bible also opposes any hesitancy as to 
the divine foresight, of freedom by teaching, the full 
omniscience and prescience of God." (2) We agree in 
rejecting all those theories which deny the foreknowl- 
edge of God. He says, " The result of our Scriptural 
examination is to negative decidedly the theories of 
Rothe, Dorner and McCabe." (3) We differ as to the 
relation of God's foreknowledge to his will. I reject, 
while Dr. Cobb accepts, with one modification, the 



AND MAN'S MORAIv NATURE. 



277 



' ' traditional ' ' or Calvinistic doctrime that foreknowl- 
edge is subsequent to the decree. His special argu- 
ments for this position will be examined as we 
advance. 

SECTION 11. 

Calvinism Limits God's Omniscience. 

The previous section has disclosed two interesting 
facts concerning the omniscience of God and human 
freedom. The great majority of Arminians agree 
with the Calvinists in earnestly advocating the divine 
foreknowledge. On the other hand all Arminians 
agree with Dr. Rothe that human freedom — self-de- 
termination — can not be held if human actions 
are predetermined by the divine Will. Thus the 
reader will perceive that the Arminian holds a middle 
position in the great contest for a right conception of 
the Divine Government. If he believes in the freedom 
of the will, he also believes in, and heartily accepts 
Paul's affirmation that " All Scripture is given by in- 
spiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for 
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous- 
ness" (11. Tim. iii. 16). When he finds some revealed 
truths which are hard to be understood, he has no 
desire to invent a theory which shall unequivocally 
conflict with the plain teachings of the Word. He 
does not wish a God who can be comprehended. If 
he interprets the Bible so as not to make it self-contra- 
dictory, nor teach doctrines which are fundamentally 
condemned by the inner revelation written on the 
fleshly table of the heart, he is willing to see some 
things " through a glass, darkly," believing that in 



278 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

the glorious future he shall know even as also he is 
known. 

The Calvinist has always earnestly contended for 
the Divine Omnipotence. When the Arminian, ac- 
cepting the plain teachings of Scripture, declares that 
the omnipotence of God is limited by free will, the 
Calvinist is ever ready to exclaim, This is Pelagian. 
It is, therefore, quite refreshing to see this same Cal- 
vinist place a limitation on the omniscience of God. 
Which is the more important, power or knowledge ? 

The reader will please remember that in the pre- 
vious chapter we were distinctly told that God could 
not know the future actions of men unless he pre- 
viously determined to accomplish or permit them, that 
according to Calvin, God knew Adam's fall, "because 
he had ordained it so by his own decree." Dr. Em- 
mons declares that the foreknowledge of God must be 
founded upon his decree, for if it is not, "it has no 
foundation : it is an effect without a cause." 

Is this logically true ? I think not, and for the 
following reasons : ( 1) It contradicts all human con- 
ceptions. Humanly speaking, existence must precede 
action. This is universally true. We can not im- 
agine a creature or thing as acting, without presup- 
posing the existence of that creature or thing. It is 
equally true on the supposition that action begins the 
very instant of existence : for the existence is, and 
must be the foundation for the action. So far forth 
this must be true of God. The mind can not con- 
ceive any attribute of God without presupposing the 
conception of existence. If I affirm the divine Power 
or Love, I first assume the existence of him who dis- 
plays such wondrous strength and affection. This 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 279 

equally applies to the subject under consideration. The 
foreknowledge of God is his knowledge of things which 
will take place in time. Knowledge is of the intellect, 
while determination is of the will. Hence, as all 
action necessarily presupposes existence, so volition 
presupposes knowledge ; otherwise the determination 
is the result of ignorance. To say this is true of man 
but not of God, is mere assumption. Inasmuch as we 
are the offspring of God, the probabilities are decidedly 
in favor of this position. To affirm that God's 
thoughts and determinations are eternal, and there- 
fore the Arminian's position can not be maintained, 
is of no effect. Granting this to be true, yet the eter- 
nity of God's thoughts and volitions does not preclude 
the fundamental conception and necessary assumption 
of his existence, and hence the same law of logical 
necessity will compel us to conceive of his knowledge 
prior to, and as the basis of his determination. More- 
over, if this last claim of the Calvinist be true, if 
God's thoughts and volitions are from eternity, why 
should he so dogmatically assert the priority of the 
Divine Volition ? 

(2) The Calvinistic doctrine of God's foreknowl- 
edge is no foreknowledge. It is simply foreordination. 
If God can not foreknow the future free actions of men, 
then so far forth there is no such thing as divine fore- 
knowledge. The Calvinist confounds all true distinc- 
tions. Knowledge is one thing : volition quite another : 
hence if God is under the necessity of predetermining 
things in order to know them, then the legitimate 
product is foreordination, instead of foreknowledge. 
This will be clearly indicated by a moment's reflection. 
Suppose the reader should try to increase his knowl- 



28o CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

edge by an act of volition. Let him seek to know 
something of astronomy, geology or chemistry by mere 
determinations. Let him endeavor to acquire knowl- 
edge of human activities by sitting in his study day 
after "day, doing nothing but exercising his will-power. 
Is it not apparent at a glance that the only knowledge 
possible in such circumstances is that concerning self? 
He knows what he has determined, relative to self and 
others, but beyond this, absolutely nothing. 

Certainly not ; because knowledge does not and 
can not come in sucu ways. So far from being the 
product of volition, knowledge forms the proper means 
for a discriminate and effective volition : Knowledge 
is the clear perception of things, not the determination 
of them. As this is all the foreknowledge allowed 
God by the Calvinist, it follows that the term is a 
misnomer. It is divine foreordination ; as Dr. Breck- 
inridge says, All things that will be actual he knows 
as being determined by his will." 

Let us now consider the arguments of Dr. Cobb 
against the Arminian conception of God's prescience. 
The following points are to be noted : ( i ) Dr. Cobb 
acknowledges that from any conception of divine fore- 
knowledge the " mystery " is not eliminated. "The 
modus of the connection between the divine foreknowl- 
edge and the world is, from any point of view, a mys- 
tery. The five theories we have examined may be 
regarded as differing simply in the location of the 
mystery ; " hence (2) As I have said, the question is 
not What view is free from difficulties? but What 
theory is most free from contradictions and mysteries ? 
Consequently after elucidating the Calvinistic doctrine, 
Dr. Cobb says, " It is my conviction that every one of 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



281 



these mysteries, except the last, results, when carried 
to its logical issues, in inconceivableness and contra- 
diction. That this is not true of the last is witnessed, 
I hold, by the analogy of our every-day experience. 
All the vast and complicated business of life is carried 
on in implicit reliance on the law that free choices are 
practically certain beforehand ; and that men who 
may go in any one of various ways will choose to go in 
a particular way. The uncertainties of this approxi- 
mation result from imperfect data, not from an unsound 
principle." The last paragraph will be noticed in due 
time. Suffice for the present that we clearly see Dr. 
Cobb's reason for rejecting the Arminian doctrine of 
prescience. Not on account of its mystery, but because 
of its " inconceivableness and contradiction." (3) Dr. 
Cobb makes some important admissions. " It would 
be hazardous for any one to assert that Whedon's the- 
ory of the divine foreknowledge is, on the face of it, 
contrary to Holy Scripture. Indeed, random assertions 
of this nature have been quite too current on the part 
of both Calvinists and Arminians ; it ought to be 
acknowledged frankly that a long line of patient 
expositors in each of these great bodies has developed, 
in either case, a system of Biblical theology which has 
a fair measure of consistency and comprehensiveness." 
" We go as far as any Arminian in maintaining the 
power of alternate choice." Quoting the words of 
Charnock, " Man hath a power to do otherwise than 
that which God foreknows he will do." Dr. Cobb 
says, " Thus far, then, we hold, distinctly and heartily, 
with the Arminians." Speaking of the usual Calvin- 
istic doctrine, he says, . . . there is one outwork of 
the fortress which I think must be abandoned. . . 



282 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

I refer to the identification of both knowledge and will 
with the simple essence of God ; " he thinks a very 
different impression is made by the Scriptures which 
represent knowledge and will as distinct, so " that 
while God knows all things, he does not will what he 
hates." Once more. "We conclude that the tradi- 
tional view of the divine foreknowledge stands in need 
of no modification save the holding fast the distinction 
in God between knowledge and will ; the former being 
fixed from eternity • the latter being gradually accom- 
plished in time." 

If I mistake not, these quotations — with their log- 
ical implications — will suffice to show the ' ' inconceiva- 
bleness and contradiction " of Dr. Cobb's position; 
for (a) Granting the essential difference between the 
divine knowledge and will, and asserting that God 
does not will that which he hates, the conclusion will 
surely follow that God foreknows many things prior 
to volition ; e. g., all things which he hates. But as 
most of the free actions of men are evil — which the 
infinitely pure God hates with a perfect hatred — the 
vast majority of future free actions are known inde- 
pendently of the divine will. To me, this seems to be 
correct reasoning — the legitimate conclusion from the 
premises. But Dr. Cobb thinks differently. If I have 
correctly interpreted his language, he will reply, God 
has a knowledge of future free actions, but not fore- 
knowledge. "The latter respects a future certainty, 
which can be made certain only by God's decree." 
Then knowledge differs from foreknowledge as cer- 
tainty differs from uncertainty. Take the other horn 
of the dilemma. Dr. Cobb will not deny the cer- 
tainty of the future free actions of the wicked : hence, 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 283 

they have been the subject of divine decree. But Dr. 
Cobb declares God does not will what he hates. The 
truth is, Dr. Cobb has deceived himself concerning 
the nature of foreknowledge and certainty. If God 
knows that which he hates without willing it, he 
knows the future free acts of the wicked ; that is fore- 
knowledge. I care not at this juncture whether these 
acts are, or are not certain. I do not propose to be 
entangled in a web of fallacies composed of different 
meanings of the term certain. 

The affirmation that there is an essential difference 
between God's knowledge and his foreknowledge can 
not be maintained. True, as Dr. Cobb declares, "We 
can conceive him as a perfect God without foreknowl- 
edge," simply because both terms refer to one attri- 
bute. Had there been no creation there would have 
been no foreknowledge of free actions, simply because 
there would have been no free agents. Yet there was 
the attribute of omniscience with its infinite capacities. 
Should Dr. Cobb say I have yielded the contest in his 
favor, I would courteously reply, Nay ; let me ask a 
question. Why did God create the present moral sys- 
tem instead of some other ? Because it was the best 
possible system. Omniscience saw the best of all 
possibilities. Will determined the actuality. If I 
am not mistaken this is conceded by Dr. Cobb. 
Speaking of the possibilities of creation he says, 
" Granting that there is no chronological separation 
between the knowledge of possibilities and of realities, 
we still insist, with Whedon himself, that volition 
must logically come after perception. " ( b) Dr. Cobb 
is involved in serious contradictions. Of Charnock's 
views of foreknowledge he says, "Dr. Whedon will 



284 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

accord (as dd we) with Charnock's account of the na- 
ture of foreknowledge." This eminent Puritan divine 
says, " God's foreknowledge is not, simply considered, 
the cause of anything. It puts nothing into things, 
but only beholds them as present, and arising from 
their proper causes God foreknows things be- 
cause they will come to pass ; but things are not future 
because God knows them." But now for a radical 
change ; he continues, ' ' No reason can be given why 
God knows a thing to be, but because he infallibly 
wills it to be." Plainly, here is a serious contradic- 
tion. L,et the reader compare them. In the first 
quotation it is declared foreknowledge "puts nothing 
into things " ; it ' ' only beholds them as present, ' ' 
coming ' ' from their proper causes. ' ' God foreknows 
them "because they will come to pass" ; but presto, 
change ; now God can foreknow only as "he infallibly 
wills it to be." Evidently this glaring contradiction 
was perceived by Dr. Cobb. He tries to break its 
force by saying, " If any one chooses to say Charnock 
was an Arminian on the will, but a Calvinist on the 
decrees, we will not dispute about names." But this 
will not do. May I remind Dr. Cobb that the dispute 
is not about names, nor whether Charnock was or was 
not an Arminian on the will. It is a dispute concern- 
ing consistency, for the quotations refer to the nature 
of divine foreknowledge. True, among the citations 
are affirmations of human freedom ; but the majority 
of them refer to foreknowledge, as is conceded by Dr. 
Cobb when he says, ' ' Dr. Whedon will accord (as do 
we) with Charnock's account of the nature of fore- 
knowledge." Hence, the contradiction remains. In 
the full exercise of his liberty Dr. Cobb may choose 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 285 

his position ; but as an Arminian, I object to such an 
interpretation of the power of alternate choice as will 
allow him to accept two contradictory postulates. 

Once more : his remark that ' ' New England Cal- 
vinists have ever had a distinct and clear-cut convic- 
tion that God foreknows with infallible certainty all 
things from all eternity" is ambiguous, and uninten- 
tionally misleading. The remark is true, because 
"New England Calvinists have ever had a distinct 
and clear-cut conviction " that God decreed all things. 
By referring to Chapter n. of Part I. the reader will 
see the correctness of this proposition. D wight, Em- 
mons, Hopkins, Griffin, D. T. Fiske and Lawrence 
agree in teaching that God foreknows only as he de- 
crees ; hence the certainty is a divine determination. 
What kind of a certainty is Dr. Cobb discussing ? 
Repeatedly does he use the term (see pp. 682, 685- 
687, 693. 694). Is it a certainty which is a will be or 
a must be ? Evidently the former, for he says, " We 
hold that as a matter of fact men always do (not 
must) choose this rather than that because they are 
persuaded so to do, and that since all these objects of 
persuasion in all their connections were infallibly fore- 
known by God, he infallibly foreknew the decisions 
of the will. We hold that God has created a system 
of free beings able in every case to choose otherwise 
than as they do,— finite and fallible, it is true, and so 
often choosing wrong — but yet with sense enough to 
choose in every case as the thing looks to them ; and 
that their Maker can always tell how it will look to 
them. We go as far as any Arminian in maintaining 
the power of alternate choice." Very well. This is 
good enough Arminianisrn for me, and I should judge, 



286 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



for Dr. Whedon. One quotation will suffice. " If 
any power be planted in an agent, God who placed it 
there, must know it. And if that power be, as we 
shall assume to have proved, a power to do otherwise 
than the agent really does do, God may be conceived 
to know it, and to know it in every specific instance." 1 
In the light of this agreement let us consider the ana- 
logical argument by which Dr. Cobb seeks to show the 
validity of the ' ' traditional view. " * ' All the vast and 
complicated business of life is carried on in implicit 
reliance on the law that free choices are practically 
certain beforehand ; and that men who may go in any 
one of various ways will choose to go in a particular 
way. The uncertainties of this approximation result 
from imperfect data, not from an unsound principle ; 
hence what is so high a degree of certainty to the 
finite apprehension becomes absolute certainty to the 
infinite apprehension." Unquestionably this is true; 
no one can successfully deny that man is a rational 
creature ; that while he is free, yet there are limita- 
tions, rules and regulations by which he is governed. 
' Power of contrary choice ' ' does not mean irration- 
ality nor lawlessness. The principle elucidated by Dr. 
Cobb, is not only recognized, but cheerfully accepted 
by Arminians. 2 So far the issue has not been reached. 
The question is this. How does God foreknow with 
infallible certainty ? Is it because he has so decreed ? 
If so, how can free beings " choose otherwise than as 
they do"? How can they choose wrong — as Dr. 



1 " The Freedom of the Will," pp. 271, 272. 

2 See Whedon's "Will." Chap. V. "Uniformities of Volition" 
Cocker's " The Theistic Conception of the World." Chap. XI. "Moral. 
Government." 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



287 



Cobb affirms they often do — since their choice is as 
the decree ? Hence it would seem that all the cer- 
tainty for which Dr. Cobb is contending is a will be, 
perfectly removed from the must be. On the other 
hand, -he uses language which seem to demand the op- 
posite conclusion. This will appear as we consider 
(V) The inconceivableness of the Arminian's posi- 
tion. Dr. Cobb says that all theories antagonistic to 
Calvinism, deny " God's independe?it knowledge of 
the free acts of his creatures. We mean by this 
knowledge, that which he draws from himself alone- 
.... Dorner and Whedon hold that if God fore- 
knows free acts, he draws the knowledge from the 
agents, not from himself. " This objection is pressed 
with considerable force, as when Dr. Cobb says, 
' ' When we inquire ' How can God draw his knowl- 
edge from an object not yet in existence, a zero?' we 
are not asking after a method, but suggesting a con- 
tradiction Before the creation of the world, 

God infallibly knew the volition I am this moment 
exercising. Is it not absurd to say that he had 
then derived this certain knowledge from my act, 
which (in Whedon' s view) had nothing whatever to 
make it certain till this moment ? " In what sense does 
Arminianism deny " God's independent knowledge of 
the free acts of his creatures ' ' ? Manifestly in that 
the free acts are indissolubly connected with a divine 
predetermination. Certainly as the creation of man 
was an independent act of God, so far forth is his 
knowledge of free acts drawn from himself. This is 
the fundamental position of Dr. Whedon, who says, 
' ' We may first remark that our view of free agency 
does not so much require in God a foreknowledge of a 



2 88 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



peculiar kind of event as a knowledge in him of a 

peculiar quality existe?it in the free agent If 

an}- power be planted in an agent, God, who placed it 
there, rnnst know it." 3 

Answering an objection that if the free act may 
occur in any one of many waj^s, the divine prescience 
must be uncertain, Dr. Richard Watson says, " . . . . 
not unless any person can prove, that the divine pre- 
science is unable to dart through all the workings of 
the human mind, all its comparisons of things in the 
judgment, all the influences of motives on the affec- 
tions, all the hesitancies and haltings of the will to its 
final choice. ' Such knowledge is too wonderful for 
us,' but it is the knowledge of him, who under- 
standeth the thoughts of man afar off. ' " 4 

Replying to Edwards, Bledsoe says, 11 Hence, if 
Edwards merely means that God could not foreknow 
a human volition, unless he foreknew all the circum- 
stances in view of the mind when it is to act, as well 
as the nature and all the circumstances of the mind 
from which the act is to proceed ; no advocate of free 
agency is at all concerned to deny his position. It 
may be true, or it may be false ; but it establishes 
nothing which may not be consistently admitted by 
the advocates of free agency." 5 

These extracts from representative Arminians suf- 
ficiently indicate the position for which I am contend- 
ing : hence, when Dr. Cobb objects to what he calls 
the "device of the eternal now," I am prepared for 

3 "Will," p. 271. See also, p. 284. 

i " Theological Institutes," Vol. I., p. 3S1. "Watson quotes Dr. S. Clark 
and Copleston to the same effect. 

5 " Will," p. 146. Dr. McCabe is of a different opinion ; but in his con- 
ception of the will he is hardly a representative Arminian. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 289 

his 1 ' fatal objection, ' ' viz. , ' ' tha* God's foreknowledge 
of a free choice exists at successive points of human 
history previous to the formation of the choice. So 
Scripture seems to represent it." Certainly; other- 
wise where is God's foreknowledge ? Once more. 
Speaking of Peter's vehement protestation, and his 
subsequent denial, Dr. Cobb asks, "Did our Lord 
know the contrary by any reflection from the subse- 
quent denial ? The choice to deny had no existence, 
and never had had. Nor was it conjectured as probable, 

but revealed as absolutely certain If one were 

able, by the argument ab ignorantia, to cany Peter's 
free act of the next morning into a timeless eternity, 
still he could not bring it back again into an anterior 
time. The mind recalcitrates against such a process. ' ' 
This is followed by his view of foreknowledge. 1 1 How 
much simpler and more rational to say that Christ 
knew Peter himself, with an absolute knowledge of all 
his impulses ; knew the holy motives which he would 
freely resist, and the temptation to which he would 
freely yield ; aye, had known this before the disciple 
was born." Verily, I find no fault w T ith this. Inter- 
preted by my previous modifications and quotations, 
it is the identical foreknowledge of this work. As 
Bushnell has truly said, God ' ' foreknows ever} T thing 
first conditionally, in the world of possibility, before 
he creates, or determines am~thing to be, in the world 
of fact. Otherwise, all his purposes would be grounded 
in ignorance, not in wisdom, and his knowledge w y ould 
consist in the following after his will, to learn w T hat 
his will has blindly determined." 6 

I will now return to the main thought of this sec- 



6 " Nature and the Supernatural," p. 50. 



290 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

tion, considering (3) The Calvinistic idea of permis- 
sion. Dr. K. A. Lawrence declares "God could not 
foreknow an event which was dependent on his posi- 
tive or permissive will until he had purposed to accom- 
plish or permit it. ' ' As all events are included within 
the positive or permissive decrees, this assertion must 
be of universal application. If the Calvinist's dis- 
tinction between the positive and permissive decrees is 
valid, then there are some things which God has 
merely decreed to allow or permit ; the Divine Deter- 
mination concerns not the thing itself — as in the case 
of the things positively decreed — but simply the 
occurrence of the thing. God decrees not to stop it. 
Very well. If this be so, if God has simply decreed 
to permit some things to occur, then he must have 
known prior to that decree that the permitted things 
were to be : for how is it possible to permit a nonen- 
tity ? But if God knew the existence of some human 
things without first decreeing them, then it irresistibly 
follows that the knowledge of God is not only prior to, 
but so far forth, is the ground of his decree. But if 
some of the decrees are based upon the divine knowl- 
edge, this Arminian wedge is sufficient to demolish 
the Calvinistic doctrine of decrees: for says the Calvin- 
ist, The decrees are one. The Calvinist may choose 
either horn of the dilemma. If he holds to the dis- 
tinction of permissive decrees, he will irresistibly 
gravitate into Arminianism. If he denies the distinc- 
tion of permissive decrees — which is pure and consist- 
ent Calvinism — he is met by an emphatic Thus saith 
the Lord : Are not my ways equal, O house of Calvin ? 
Are not your ways unequal ? 

(4) We now see the utter groundlessness of this 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. * 29 1 

Calvinistic assumption that God can not know future 
free actions unless tie has previously determined them. 
It has no warrant either in reason or Scripture. Rea- 
son demands knowledge as the basis of volition — 
human or divine. Where is the passage of the Word 
telling us God can not know until he predetermines ? 
We look in vain throughout the Bible, for it declares 
no such doctrine. It clearly teaches that God does 
know the future free actions of men without explain- 
ing the modus operandi. This, as the reader well 
knows, the Arminian gladly accepts. If the Calvin- 
istic solution were the only one possible, if the alter- 
native were the acceptance of Calvinism, or the 
rejection of the plain teaching of Scripture, I could 
only say, " I^et God be true, but every man a liar." 
It is this firm adherence to the Bible that has compelled 
me to disagree so emphatically with that class of 
Arminian thinkers who deny the divine foreknowledge. 
So far I am with my antagonists, the Calvinists. 
This may prompt them to say that my confidence in 
the Bible should lead me to accept their doctrines, 
even though there are some things hard to be under- 
stood. But right here I beg leave to differ. Walking 
by faith is one thing, shutting my eyes to the light 
quite another. By the first I honor God : by the lat- 
ter I cast reproach upon him, who has said, "Come 
now, let us reason together. ' ' I^uther once said : God 
is above mathematics, logic, and reason. Doubtless 
it was piously meant ; but I am sure it was a very 
foolish remark. If Calvinism tries to vindicate the 
ways of God to men it must do so according to the 
laws of reason and the plain teachings of Scripture. 
Here is the conflict. I, with many others, think its 



292 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

attempts egregious failures. This is what I am endeav- 
oring to prove ; with what success, the reader must 
judge. 

SECTION III. 

The Bible Testimony Concerning the Divine Prescience 
and Will. 

For centuries eminent scholars have been divided 
by the question, What does the Bible Teach on this 
Subject ? It is evident at a glance that if learned and 
candid exegetes can not entirely agree in answering 
this question, the ordinary Christian student may be 
excused from venturing an independent solution. 

Hence I shall rest satisfied for the present, by pre- 
senting the views of eminent thinkers who are known 
to belong to the Calvinistic or independent schools of 
theology. The following testimony is worthy of spe- 
cial consideration. If the peculiar doctrines of Cal- 
vinism are not sustained by this examination it will 
be legitimate to affirm that the system is radically 
unbiblical 

The reader will bear in mind the precise nature of 
the problem. It relates to the Divine Foresight and 
Will. The Calvinist affirms and the Arminian denies 
that the will of God is prior to, and the basis of his 
foreknowledge. 

" Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel 
and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by 
wicked hands have crucified and slain " (Acts ii. 23). 
The fact that foreknowledge is the second term avails 
nothing since the process is reversed in other passages. 
Alford says : 4 ' The counsel and foreknowledge of 
God are not the same ; the former designates his 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



293 



Eternal Plan, by which he has arranged all things 
(hence the determinate counsel) the latter, the omni- 
science, by which every part of this plan is foreseen 
and unforgotten by him." 

Meyer has the following: "This was no work of 
men, no independent success of the treachery, which 
would, in fact, testify against the Messiahship of 
Jesus ! but it happened in virtue of the fixed, there- 
fore unalterable, resolve and (in virtue of the) fore- 
knowledge of God." 

" And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad 
and glorified the word of the Lord ; and as many as 
were ordained to eternal life, believed " (Acts xiii. 48). 
This passage has long been a favorite proof- text for 
Calvinists. Thus Dr. Cobb in the article previously 
considered maintains that if the more natural inter- 
pretation of 1. Pet. 1-3, and Rom. viii. 29, favors the 
Arminian, the more natural interpretation of John vi. 
37 and Acts xiii. 48 favors the Calvinist. 7 But this is 
by no means a warrantable conclusion. It is now 
generally conceded that the doctrine of unconditional 
predestination is not taught by the passage. Not a 
few scholars are of the opinion that the word ' ' or- 
dained " is inaccurate, the original idea being better 
expressed by "disposed." It is thus translated by 
Alford, who says, "The Jews had judged themselves 
unworthy of eternal life ; the Gentiles, as many as 
were disposed to eternal life, believed. By whom 
so disposed, is not here declared, nor need the 
word be in this place further particularized. We 
know that it is God who worketh in us the will to 
believe, and that the preparation of the heart is of him • 



7 " Bib. Sacra," 1883, p. 667. 



294 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

but to find in this text preordination to life asserted, 
is to force both the word and the context to a meaning 
which they do not contain." Meyer sa}^, " It was 
dogmatic arbitrariness which converted our passage 
into a proof of the decretum absolution. For Luke 
leaves out of account the relation of ' being ordained ' 
to free self-determination ; the object of his remark is 
not to teach a doctrine, but to indicate a historical 
sequence." 

Dr. Jenks in the Comprehensive Commentary says, 
1 ' It would seem we must look elsewhere for the doc- 
trine of absolute election." 

Bloomfield affirms, ' ' That it is a popular mode of 
expression, is proved by Rabbinical citations of Light- 
food and Wescott, who give a score of examples of the 
phrase ordained to future life— to punishment, to life, 
to hell." 

" For whom he did foreknow, he also did predes- 
tinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he 
might be the firstborn among many brethren " (Rom. 
viii. 29). 

Dr. Albert Barnes says " The literal meaning of the 
word can not be a matter of dispute. It denotes prop- 
erly to know beforehand ; to be acquainted with future 
events. This passage does not affirm why or how or 
on what grounds God knew that some would be saved. 
It .simply affirms the fact." Godet says, " The decree 
of predestination is founded on the act of foreknowl- 
edge." In the American edition of Godet's Epistle to 
the Romans, the editor, Dr. T. W. Chambers, combats 
this interpretation and affirms the usual Calvinistic 
doctrine. Like the eminent theologians whom we 
have already considered, Dr. Chambers fails to show 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



295 



why " a sovereign God does not save the non-elect. 
Calvinism can not stand erect in the presence of gospel 
exegesis. 

Speaking of the divine call, Alford says," It sprung 
from God's foreknowledge, co-ordinate with his fore- 
determination of certain persons to be conformed to 
the image of his Son." Again, in alluding to the 
meaning of foreknew, he says, " This has been much 
disputed, the Pelagian view, — ' those who he foreknew 
would believe ' is taken by Origen, Chrysostom, 
Augustine, and others ; the sense of foreloved, by 
Grotius, and others ; that of foredecreed, by Stuart 
and others ; that of elected, adopted as his sons, by 
Calvin, who says, 'The foreknowledge of God, of 
which Paul here makes mention, is not bare prescience, 
as some ignorant persons foolishly pretend, but adop- 
tion, whereby God hath ever distinguished his Sons 
from the wicked.' That this latter is implied, is cer- 
tain : but I prefer taking the word in the ordinary 
sense of foreknew, especially as it is guarded from 
being a ' bare prescience ' by what follows. . . . His 
foreknowledge was not a mere being previously aware 
how a series of events would happen ; but was co-or- 
dinate with, and inseparable from, his having pre- 
ordained all things." 

If, as Alford declares, the divine foreknowledge 
and forede termination are co-ordinate what reason 
has the Calvinist to assert that the foreknowledge 
must be subordinate to the predermination ? The fol- 
lowing is from Dr. David Brown in ' ' The Portable 
Commentary." " In what sense are we to take the 
word ' foreknow ' here ? ' Those who he foreknew 
would repent and believe,' say Pelagians of every age 



296 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

and every hue. But this is to thrust into the text 
what is contrary to the whole spirit, and even letter of 
the Apostle's teaching (see Ch. ix. 11 ; n. Timothy 
i. 9). In Ch. xi. 2, and Psalm i. 6, God's ' knowledge ' 
of his people can not be restricted to a mere foresight 
of future events, or acquaintance with what is passing 
here below. Does 'whom, he did foreknow,' then, 
mean whom he foreordained ? Scarcely, because both 
foreknowledge and foreordination are here mentioned, 
and the one as the cause of the other. It is difficult 
indeed for our limited minds to distinguish them as 
states of the Divine Mind towards men ; especially 
since in Acts ii. 23, ' the counsel ' is put before ' the 
foreknowledge of God,' while in 1. Peter i. 2 ' election ' 
is said to be ' according to the foreknowledge of God.' 
But probably God's foreknowledge of his own people 
means his peculiar, gracious, complacency in tkem y 
while his ' predestinating ' or ' foreordaining ' them 
signifies his fixed purpose, flowing from this, to ' save 
them and call them with an holy calling ' (11. Timothy 
i. 9) to be conformed to the image of his Son." So 
far as this solution bears upon the generic question, it 
is inclined toward Arminianism ; for Dr. Brown dis- 
tinctly asserts that the predestination flows from the 
foreknowledge. 

Meyer's view is worthy of particular attention : he 
says, "itpoy never in the New Testament (not even 
in xi. 2, 1. Peter i. 20) means anything else than to 
know beforehand (Acts xxvi. 5 ; 11. Peter iii. 17 ; Ju- 
dith ix. 6; Wisd. vi. 13; viii. 8; xviii. 6) 

That in classic usage it ever means anything else, can 

not be at all proved It is God's being aware 

in his plan, by means of which, before the subjects 



AND MAN'SMORAL NATURE. 297 

are destined by him to salvation, he knows whom he 
has to destine thereto." 8 

The following from Dr. Moses Stuart is substan- 
tially the same as the view of Dr. Barnes. " The text 
does not say why or how God foreknew ; but merely 
that he did so." Again " . . . .all those of any 
party in theology who draw from itpohyvoo the con- 
clusion that God foreordained or chose or loved, out 
of his mere good pleasure, on the one hand ; or from 
his foresight of faith and good works on the other ; 
deduce from the text what is not in it, for it says 

neither the one nor the other It lies on the face 

of the whole paragraph, that certainty of future glory to 
all the uXrjToi &eov, is what the writer means to affirm : 
and to affirm it by showing that it is a part of the 
everlasting purposes of God." 9 

In commenting on this passage Olshausen informs 
his readers that ' ' the expressions in these verses, which 
refer to the doctrine of election by grace .... will 
be further explained at Rom. ix." Considering the 
different passages where the terms 1 ' foresee " ' ' fore- 
know" "predetermine" "purpose" occur, he says 
they "express the knowledge and the will of God, 
before the object of his knowledge comes into outward 
manifestations. And as all the expressions applied 
in Scripture to God have been selected, not on his ac- 
count, but for the sake of man, so too, it is only for 
man that they hold perfectly good. Considered from 
the human point of view, God does in fact foreknow, 
although for himself the whole co-exists in one eternal 
present. Again, in the expressions in question, there 



8 Com. Vol. II., pp. 93, 95. See Note I at the end ot this Chapter. 
0 " Com." pp. 385-387. 



298 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

are evidently two distinct classes, first those which ex- 
press knowledge or discernment, then those which ap- 
ply to the will. It may be objected that, although the 
will alwaj^s presupposes the knowledge of that which 
a man wills, yet knowledge need not always be com- 
bined with the volition of the thing known. God, 
for instance, knows evil as such, not simply as a phe- 
nomenon ; he discerns in the evil deed what it is that 
makes evil, but not the will. Yet, correct as this is, it 
has no relation to the phraseology of Paul. The 
apostle never speaks but of God's knowledge of the 
evil phenomenon ; but this, God wills as well as 
knows ; and it is only and solely because he wills it 
that it comes into manifestation. We must, therefore, 
altogether reject the Pelagian distinction of a prczvisio 
and pr<zdestinatio when we view the question in 
relation to the good (since it has indeed with regard 
to evil a degree of truth) as being of no service at all 
in solving the difficulties in the apostle's writings. 
In Paul, God's foreknowledge always implies a fore- 
working and a foredetermination, just as his forede- 
termination is never without foreknowledge." 1 

We shall have occasion to reconsider the position 
of this eminent theologian. Let it suffice for the pres- 
ent that we ascertain his exact standing on the point 
now at issue, viz., Is the determination of God prior 
to his knowledge? He grants that it is legitimate to 
say that a thing ma} T be known without its being 
willed : that God discerns the generic nature of evil 
without willing it (although he does will the mani- 
festations or forms of evil) ; while he thinks God's 
foreknowledge always implies a foreworking, and a 



1 " Com." Vol. IV., p. 82. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE 299 

foredetermi nation, he also affirms that this determina- 
tion is never without foreknowledge, which not only 
necessitates the conclusion chat foreknowledge can not 
be subordinate to predestination, but fairly implies 
that prescience is prior to volition 

The following from the Commentary of Dr. Charles 
Hodge is worthy of careful consideration " It is evi- 
dent, on the one hand, that itp6yvoo6i$ expresses some- 
thing more than the presence of which all men and all 
events are the subjects ; and on the other, something 
different from the itpoopi6po$ (predestination) ex- 
pressed by the following word 1 whom he foreknew, 
them he also predestinated. ' The predestination fol- 
lows, and is grounded on the foreknowledge. The 
foreknowledge, therefore, expresses the act of cogni- 
tion or recognition — the fixing, so to speak, the mind 
upon, which involves the idea of selection. If we 
look over a number of objects with the view of select- 
ing some of them for a definite purpose, the first act is 
to fix the mind on some, to the neglect of the others ; 
and the second is, to destine them to the proposed end. 
So God is represented as looking on the fallen mass of 
men, and fixing on some whom he predestinates to 
salvation. This is the Ttpoyvoo6is, the foreknowledge, 
of which the apostle here speaks. It is the knowing, 
fixing upon, or selecting those who are to be predes- 
tinated to be conformed to the image of the Son of 
God." 

This concession is of great importance. When Dr. 
Hodge admits that ' 1 the predestination follows and is 
grounded on the foreknowledge," he has virtually 
decided the contest against his own system. As I 
have remarked, this is the very question at issue, and 



300 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

the one which I propose to keep before the reader, viz., 
Does the determination of God come before his fore- 
knowledge? Dr. Hodge says it does not. On the 
contrary he affirms that it follows and is grounded on 
the foreknowledge. His after explanation is valuable 
only as it illustrates the difficulties by which the Cal- 
vinist is surrounded when he attempts to evade the 
legitimate consequences of the concession. Take 
his analogy of a finite mind looking " over a number 
of objects with the view of selecting some of them for a 
definite purpose," and if it proves anything, it cer- 
tainly shows that a given object is selected in propor- 
tion as it is fitted to fulfill the required end. On the 
same principle is the Divine selection made. 2 

As the term " foreknew " in Rom. xi. 2 is of the 
same nature as the passage under consideration, we 
may legitimately pass to the Petrine conception of this 
subject. In the First Epistle we are told that election 
is 1 ' according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, 
through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and 
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ " (i. 2). Rev. 
A. R. Fausset says this passage means "foreordaining 
love (v. 20) inseparable from God's /^r<?knowledge, the 
origin from which, and pattern according to which 
election takes place. Acts ii. 23, and Romans xi. 2, 
prove ' foreknowledge ' to be foreordination. God's 
foreknowledge is not the perception of any ground of 
action out of himself ; still in it liberty is compre- 
hended, and all absolute constraint debarred." 3 

If election is inseparable from God's foreknowledge, 



2 For the views taught in Range's Commentary, see Note II. at the end 
of this Chapter. 

3 " The Portable Commentary." 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



30I 



and if this foreknowledge is the origin from which and 
pattern according to which it takes place, then the 
volition can not precede the prescience. 

The following is from Dr. Cowles who, though not 
a pronounced Calvinist is not generally identified with 
the Arminians. His reputation is that of an earnest, 
independent commentator. ' ' In the words ' elect 
according to the foreknowledge of God, the Father,' 
the difficulties pertain to theology rather than to inter- 
pretation. The sense of the words is very obvious so 
far as the province of interpretation extends. They 
imply that election is according to God's foreknowl- 
edge. This interprets their proper meaning. It re- 
mains for the theologian to inquire whether we can 
ascertain how God foreknows the free moral activities 
of men ; how the fact that he does, can be harmonized 
with man's freedom ; also, whether he must be sup- 
posed to elect men according to his own foreknowledge 
of what they will do without his own working in 
them morally, or with and under this spiritual in- 
working, etc. In other words, does his election hinge 
upon his foreknowing things as they are, or things 
as they are not ? Things as they are, means a world of 
free and morally responsible agents with whose free- 
dom God never interferes, but always honors and rec- 
ognizes it : means a system of spiritual agencies from 
God working toward the salvation of men, which 
agencies of the Spirit, some men resist to their own 
ruin. The foreknowledge, therefore, upon which 
election turns is not foreknowing what men would do 
if there were no Holy Ghost, or what they would do 
if his influences were withheld ; but it is rather fore- 
knowing what men will do under the truth as im- 



302 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



pressed by the Spirit. Hence, we can readily appre- 
ciate the supreme, unparalleled wisdom of the exhor- 
tation : ' work out your own salvation with fear and 
trembling, for it is God who worketh in you to will 
and do of his own pleasure' (Phil. ii. 12, 13)." 4 

It will now be in order to pause and see what our 
investigation has revealed. And once more I respect- 
fully request the reader to remember the precise point 
at issue. I have repeated!}' said that the Arminian does 
not endeavor to tell how God can foreknow the future 
actions of free agents : he simply affirms the fact, and 
on the basis of that fact he declares that the Divine 
Will must be conditioned on that knowledge. This is 
emphatically denied by the Calvinist. As I have 
clearly shown in Chapter 111. of Part L, almost every 
Calvinistic theologian from Augustine to Hodge 
has declared the priority of the Divine Will, affirming 
that God could know the future free actions only as 
he had previously determined to permit, or to bring 
them to pass. Hence, it is the Calvinist who attempts 
to search the mysteries of God. and declares that 
which is not revealed. 

We have examined this declaration in the light of 
reason, and have found it to be mere assumption. 
Then we passed to the Scriptural argument and dis- 
covered the same unwarranted conclusion. On the 
testimony of eminent theologians who are either inde- 
pendent of all distinctive schools, or inclined to the 
Calvinistic, we find that the passages which have been 
claimed by the Calvinists do not teach their doctrine. 
Barnes and Stuart declare that Rom. viii. 29 does not 
reveal the "how" or the "why," or "on what 

4 The Shorter Epistles.'' 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 303 

grounds ' ' God foreknew, but simply the fact. Alford 
denies the priority of the divine Will by affirming that 
the knowledge is co-ordinate with the volition. 
Brown says that ' ' Whom he did foreknow ' ' can 
scarcely mean whom he foreordained, because both 
terms are used, "and the one as the cause of the 
other." Meyer declares that the term it pay never 
means anything else than to know beforehand ; that 
the assertion it means anything else in classic usage 
"can not be at all proved." For a correct under- 
standing of Olshausen's position, the reader must bear 
in mind the fact that this author is somewhat peculiar 
in his conception of God's relation to evil. The 
Divine volition concerns, not wicked personalities as 
such, but their manifestations. The wicked are such 
because they resist the Infinite Good, but so far they 
are foreknown of God, and because he foreknows them 
as wicked, he positively wills when and how they 
shall appear in time. But, the reader may reply, this 
basing of God's will concerning the wicked on his fore- 
knowledge of them, is the generic position of the Ar- 
minians. To which I reply, True, but that is no fault 
of mine ; I am now expounding the views of this 
eminent theologian : that I have accurately inter- 
preted Olshausen the following quotation will show. 
"Though, therefore, in virtue of his attributes of om- 
niscience and omnipotence, God assuredly both fore- 
knows who they are that will resist his grace, and 
causes them to appear in definite forms in history, he 
knows them only as persons who, by abuse of their 
own free will, have become evil and continued so." 5 
It is fairly certain, therefore, that if these passages 

5 p- 92. 



304 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

do not teach the doctrine that God foreknows because 
he first determines, then it is not taught in the Bible. 
Such passages as merely speak of predestination with- 
out alluding to foreknowledge (Eph. i. 5, 11) can 
not be held as of more importance than these under 
consideration. Rather such parts of Scripture must 
be interpreted according to these, for the absence of a 
term by 110 means proves that it is not assumed. 
(Examine the views of Paul and James concerning 
faith and works. ) 

Thus we see that this doctrine of Calvinism has no 
foundation, either in reason or in Scripture. So far 
the Arminian is satisfied. For the sake of the argu- 
ment he is perfectly willing to grant that, so far as 
these passages are concerned, the fact that God does 
foreknow is the precise thing revealed. Nay, he is 
even willing to concede that Dr. Hodge is correct in 
saying that to know ' ' is often to approve and love, it 
may express the idea of peculiar affection in the case ; 
or it may mean to select or determine upon." All 
this may, or may not be so, and the Arminian's posi- 
tion remains untouched. For this simply states the 
fact that God foreknows or loves without explaining 
why he loves. But advancing a step, the Arminian 
affirms that God's decrees must be based upon his 
foreknowledge. This is the only explanation which 
will consistently harmonize the plain statements of 
Scripture, not only with themselves, but also with the 
fundamental postulates of man's moral nature. 

The reader has seen what must be the logical con- 
clusion if the fundamental doctrine of Calvinism is 
accepted. If God has determined — irrespective of 
what men will freely do in time — who shall, and who 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 305 

shall not be saved, then surely Christ did not die to 
save all : the universal invitations of God's Word are 
sad, perplexing mockeries ; God's sincerity can not be 
maintained, and the Scriptural doctrine of just rewards 
according to the deeds done in the body is unequivo- 
cally contradicted. The Arminian contends that the 
clearly revealed must be the interpreter of the more 
obscure parts of Scripture ; hence so far as the decrees 
are explained it must be on the basis of prescience. 

I maintain that so far as any solution is accepted, 
the mind must hold to that view which presents the 
least difficulty ; this is true in the realm of science and 
should be in that of theology. I shall now endeavor 
to show that for this reason the Arminian doctrine 
must be accepted. Notice: (i) The confession of 
Pictet, who says, " .... if election were according 
to faith and works foreseen, there would be no diffi- 
culty in answering the question why God chooses one 
and not another. It would be because God foresaw 
that the former would believe and that the latter would 
remain in unbelief. ' ' 

(2) Olshausen can not accept the Calvinistic doc- 
trine of "gratia irresistibiles" — -which is necessary 
to the system — because it " necessarily draws after it 
the whole doctrine of predestination, with its most ex- 
treme consequences ; " again, he says the universality 
of grace must be held, or else we must "attribute 
man's agency in resisting grace also to God, in the 
way in which this is done by the rigid doctrine of 
predestination : for in that event God would call those 
who were not elected as it were in mockery, only to 
put men all the sooner and more surely to confusion ; 
a representation which can only be described as one 



306 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



of the most remarkable aberrations which the human 
mind has ever disclosed." Possibly the .reader is of 
the opinion that this is not very favorable to Cal- 
vinism. The following from Dr. Kendrick will prob- 
ably strengthen the supposition : 

" The editor deems it proper, here, once for all, to 
state his dissent from Olshausen's explanation of the 
profound questions here presented. He can not accept 
the author's solution of the relation of Divine grace 
to human salvation. He does not believe that the 
turning point in election is God's foreknowledge of 
the non resistance of his grace on the part of the 
elect. He believes that there is no antecedent differ- 
ence between those who accept the grace of God and 
those who reject it. Those who are saved are sub- 
dued by the power (whether called irresistible or not) 
of Divine grace, 3^et without any infringement of their 
free agency, and those who refuse it might in like 
manner, with precisely the same ease (as in every 
case it is the work of Omnipotence) be constrained, 
if it were the Divine pleasure to do so." 6 

(3) As is well known, Alford is so very fair that 
at times he ignores the analogy of faith and gives what 
he thinks is the exact meaning of the passage. Conse- 
quently, while quite Calvinistic in Romans, he is rather 
on the Arminian ground in First Timothy : hence, 
he says of the assertion that God ' ' willeth all men to 
be saved and to come unto the certain knowledge of 
the truth " that "On this even God's predestination 
is contingent.'- He ma}' have thought that divine 
predestination is, and at the same time, is not contin- 
gent concerning the same thing. But this involves a 

6 Pages 80, 92, 133 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



307 



logical contradiction : therefore I believe that if pre- 
destination is contingent on the acceptance of salva- 
tion which is sincerely offered to all, then God has 
not first determined that some should be passed by, 
irrespective of their foreseen actions. 

(4) A brief consideration of Dr. Moses Stuart's 
position will close the discussion. As previously 
stated this author affirms that Rom. viii. 29 does not 
decide whether the election is from God's " mere good 
pleasure or from a foresight of their faith and good 
works." Yet he thinks the question is settled by 
other texts of Scripture that the merit or obedience of 
the ' ' elect was not the ground or reason of their regen- 
eration and sanctification. This would be assuming 
that holiness existed before it did exist ; that it was 
the ground of that which it followed only as a conse- 
quence." 7 

But does this conclusion legitimately follow from 
the premises ? No, certainly not, for on the same ba- 
sis of argument, evil may be said to have existed 
before it did exist. As though a foreseen cause, or 
reason of action is under the necessity of being postu- 
lated as actually existing. The very same argument 
will apply with equal force to the non-elect. If the 
elect are not foreseen as meeting the requirements of 
the gospel, but are saved by God's mere good pleas- 
ure, then the non-elect are not condemned because of 
their foreseen non-fulfillment of the gospel require- 
ment, but of the so-called, mere good pleasure of God, 
which entirely overthrows the plain teaching of the 
Bible. 

But what is meant by the phrase God's good pleas- 



7 Commentary, p. 630. 



308 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

ure ? As the term evdoma (eudokia) is used in the first 
chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, it may 
signify real benevolence, or an absolute purpose which 
must be considered as final. I do not care which of 
these meanings is selected, for as I have already said, 
granting that election is according to the Divine Pur- 
pose — which I have never denied — yet that purpose is 
according to knowledge, or humanly speaking, fore- 
knowledge. I lay it down as an axiom that God's 
good pleasure is according to what he himself has 
declared. Consequently it can never be legitimately 
construed as self-contradictory. Dr. Stuart thinks 
that it should be interpreted as meaning ' ' that God 
has done this, while the reasons are entirely unknown 
to us." But that this is not so, I now propose to show 
from his own concessions. Speaking of the decretum 
absolutum, the determination that the elect " should 
be saved, irrespectively of their character and actions, ' ' 
he says, " one can not well see how this is to be made 
out. So much must be true, viz., that they are not 
regenerated, sanctified, or saved on account of merit : 
all is from grace, pure grace. If this be all that any 
one means by the decretum absohdum, there can be no 
reasonable objection made to it. But on the other 
hand ; as God is omniscient, and therefore must know 
every part of every man's character, through all stages 
of his being ; as all things, in their fullest extent, 
must have always been naked and open to his view ; 
so we can not once imagine, that any decree or pur- 
pose in respect to the ulyroi can have been made irre- 
spectively of their whole character. Such an irrespec- 
tion (if I may use the word) is impossible. God has 
never determined, and from his holy nature never can 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 309 

determine to save any except such as are conformed to 
the image of his Son." Then according to Dr. Stuart 
the reasons for the decree to save the elect are not 
1 1 entirely unknown to us. ' ' No, by no means, for that 
decree is not "made irrespectively of their whole 
character. ' ' 

Now if this language means anything more than 
the usual Calvinistic terminology — that God foresees 
because he has previously determined— then it is 
strongly tinctured with Arminianism. But the matter 
is susceptible of demonstration beyond all reasonable 
questioning : he says, ' ' The moment we admit him 
to bean omniscient and omnipotent God, that moment 
we admit that he must have foreseen from eternity all 
the actions of his creatures, all their thoughts and 
affections and wishes and desires. We can not deny 
that foreseeing all these with all their consequences, 
he brought them into being and placed them (for 
surely it was he who ordered their lot) in circum- 
stances where he knew they would act as he had 
foreseen they would. It is impossible to deny this, 
without denying the omniscience of God, and his 
immutability." 7 The following is to show how God 
may have an eternal purpose and yet man be a free 
agent. ' ' Does the certain knowledge we now have 
of a past event, destroy the free agency of those who 
were concerned in bringing about that event ? Did any 
previous knowledge of the same necessarily interfere 
with their free agency ? And as to free agency itself, 
can not God make a creature in his own image, free 
like himself, rational like himself, the originator of 
thoughts and volitions like himself? Can this be 



7 p- 635. 



3 TO CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

disproved ? The fact that we are dependent beings, 
will not prove that we may not be free agents as 
to the exercise of the powers with which we are 
endowed, —free in a sense like to that in which 
God himself as a rational being, is free. Nor will 
this establish any contingency or uncertainty of 
events, in the universe. Could not God as well fore- 
see what would be the free and voluntary thought of 
men, in consequence of the powers which he should 
give them, as he could foresee thoughts and volitions 
which would proceed from the operation of eternal 
causes upon them ? Until this can be denied on the 
ground of reason and argument, the sentiment in 
question is not justly liable to the charge of introduc- 
ing the doctrine of casual contingency or uncer- 
tainty into the plans of the Divine Mind." 8 

With the exception of the thought concerning the 
certainty of that which is foreknown, this entire para- 
graph is permeated with pure Arminianism. In what 
sense then does Dr. Stuart insist that the foreseen is 
certain ? Why, manifestly in the same sense as I have 
already granted when considering the views of Rothe, 
viz., that inasmuch as the Divine Foresight can not 
be deceived nor mistaken, of all the possibilities, God 
sees that which will be, and hence to say that it is 
uncertain is to affirm that that which will be, will 
or may not be. Any other interpretation of the cer- 
tainty would necessarily destroy the meaning of his 
previous affirmation that we are created in God's 
image, free, "rational like himself, the originator of 
thoughts and volitions like himself." 

At this point I am willing to rest the case. I have 

8 p. 627. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



3" 



shown by able Calvinistic and independent testimony, 
that the claim of the Calvinist, God first determines and 
as a consequence knows who are to be saved, is not 
legitimately deduced from Scripture. I have shown 
that Arminianism is the more rational and Scriptural 
explanation and as such must be accepted. lastly, I 
have shown that Calvinisms themselves, when fully 
explaining their system either assume or boldly affirm 
the Divine Foresight as prior to his decrees. 



note 1. 

Meyer's position is somewhat peculiar ; he says, 
" The contents of ix. 6-29 as they have been unfolded 
by pure exegesis, certainly exclude, when taken in and 
by themselves, the idea of a decree of God conditioned 
by human moral self-activity, as indeed God's absolute 
activity taken as such by itself can not depend on that 
of the individual. On the other hand, a fatalistic 
determinism, the ' tremendum mysterium ■ of Calvin, 
which, following the precedent of Augustine, robs 
man of his self-determination and free personal attitude 
towards salvation, and makes him the passive object 
of divine sovereign will, may just as little be derived 
as a Pauline doctrine from our passage. It can not be 
so, because our passage is not to be considered as 
detached from the following (vs. 30-33, chap. x. xi.) ; 
and because, generally, the countless exhortations of 
the apostle to obedience of faith, to steadfastness of 
faith and Christian virtue, as well as his admonitions 
on the possibility of losing salvation, and his warnings 



312 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

against falling from grace, are just so many evidences 
against that view, which puts aside the divine will of 
love, and does away the essence of human morality 
and responsibility : ' ' his view is this : ' ' As often as 
we treat only one of the two truths ; ' God is absolutely 
free, and all efficient,' and ' Man has moral freedom, 
and is, in virtue of his proper self-determination and 
responsibility, as liberum agens, the author of his sal- 
vation or perdition,' and carry it out in a consistent 
theory, and therefore in a One-sided method, we are 
compelled to speak in such a manner that the other 
truth appears to be annulled — only appears however ;. 
for, in fact, all that takes place in this case is a tempo- 
rary and conscious withdrawing of attention from the 
other. In the present instance Paul found himself in 
this case, and he expresses himself according to this 
mode of view, not merely in a passing reference, vs. 20, 
21, but in the whole reasoning, 6-29." After this 
passage has been disclosed, Meyer thinks that Paul 
" allows the claims of both modes of consideration to 
stand side by side, just as they exist side by side 
within the limits of human thought. ' ' 9 

note 11. 

The American Edition of Range's Commentary is 
so voluminous that it is difficult to convey its position 
to the reader without numerous citations ; hence, I 
have thought best to present the views of this Calvin- 
istic authority in the form of a Note. 

Dr. Lange maintains that "the passage in vs. 29 
and 30 contains the whole Divine plan of salvation, 



9 Pages 166-169. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 313 

from the first foundation to the ultimate object." He 
regards the passage in Ephesians i. 4-14 as substan- 
tially agreeing with, and as illustrating the present 
passage. He says, ' ' As the foreknowing here pre- 
cedes the predestinating, so there the choosing (v. 4) 
precedes the predestinating (v. 5); from which it 
follows that both the foreknowing and the electing 
mean essentially the same thing — an act preceding the 

predestination We may further observe, that 

a real difference exists between election and foreordi- 
nation, or predestination, and that the itpoyivoo6uEiv 
can not possibly mean foreknowledge, in God's idea, 
of subjects already present (for whence would they 
have come into God's idea ?) but that it can only mean 
the loving and creative sight, in God's intuitive vis- 
ion, of human personalities for a preliminary ideal ex- 
istence. The doctrine of predestination of Augustine, 
of the Middle Ages, and of the Reformers, could not 
reach this idea of election intellectually (Christian 
faith has always reached it in spirit), because the dis- 
tinction between the idea of the individual personality 
of man and the idea of the 'specimen of every kind' 
had not yet been definitely attained. It is now clear 
that such a ' foreknowing ' of God in relation to all 
human individuals must be accepted, because man is 
an individual thought of God : and that the same 
must hold good of electing in so far as each individual 
is distinct in his solitary separation from all other in- 
dividuals and has a solitary call (see Rev. ii. 17). 
But it follows from this that the foreknowing of the 
* elect, ' when it has become manifest, must be accepted 
in the most emphatic sense, analogously to the fact 
that Abraham is, in God's typical kingdom, the elect 



314 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



uar eqoxyv, and that Christ is the elect in God's 
real kingdom in the absolute sense, so that all 
his followers are chosen together with him as 
organic members, according to their organic rela- 
tions (Hph. i.)- From both propositions it follows, 
further, that election does not constitute an infinite 
opposition between such as are ordained to salvation 
and such as are ordained to condemnation, but an 
infinite difference of destinations for glory : which 
difference, however, can be the basis of an actual 
opposition (see Matt. xxv. 24), and therefore is also 
combined with this. As the foreknowing expresses 
the collective foundation, the Godlike spiritual nature 
of the elect as the product and object of Divine love, 
there is comprised in the electing not only their elec- 
tion from the mass of the world, but also the distin- 
guishing features of their jap/tf^arra: and character. 
. . . . The Apostle says ovi four times, and rovrov? 
three times. After the ideal determinations of per- 
sonalities themselves, there can now follow the pre- 
destination of their dpo$ in time and space, their 
whole lot (including the previously determined per- 
mission and control of the fall). For the foundation 
of the world corresponds to the history of the world. 
But the fate of each individual is designed to mature 
him under gratia prceveniens, for conversion, and 
when this object is reached, it is his turn : he is 
rerayfieroS (Acts xiii. 48)." 

While Dr. Riddle regards "these Notes of Dr. 
I^ange " as very just and especially valuable "for 
minds trained in the school of hyper- Calvinism," still 
he thinks the problem has not been solved. " The 
Apostle himself does not do it ; " again : commenting 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



315 



on Lange' s notes concerning the clause — " Even for 
this very purpose have I raised thee up," Dr. Riddle 
says, " While we must utterly reject, both on lexical 
and theological grounds, the extreme supralapsarian 
view : God created thee, i. e., as a hardened sinner ; the 
view of Lange and many modern interpreters is too 
weak — is out of keeping both with the original tran- 
saction and the use here made of it," 

For the sake of brevity I will now ask a few leading 
questions, allowing Doctors Lange, Riddle and Schaff 
to answer for themselves. 

(1) Is the doctrine of absolute predestination 
Scripturally true? "This passage (Rom. ix. 18) if 
taken out of its connection, seems to declare an abso- 
lute predestination in the supralapsarian sense." 
—Lange. 

On the previous verse, Dr. Riddle says, as we have 
previously seen, " We must utterly reject, both on lex- 
ical and theological grounds, the extreme supralap- 
sarian view : God created thee, i. e. , as a hardened 
sinner." After having spoken adversely concerning 
Arminian expositors, Dr. Schaff says, " Yet we must 
guard against the opposite extreme of supralapsarian- 
ism, which with fearful logical consistency, makes 
God the author of the fall of Adam, hence of sin : 
thus really denying both God's holiness and love and 
man's accountability, to the ultimate extinguishment 
of all morality. Many, indeed, have held this view, 
whose lives, by a happy inconsistency, were far better 
than their theories. They arrived at this extreme 
position through a one-sided explanation of this pas- 
sage, and through the logical consequence of their 
conception of God's all-determining will. But if we 



316 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

would not have the Bible prove anything man wishes, 
we must interpret single passages in their connection 
with the whole, and according to the analogy of 
faith." 1 

(2) In what sense is it true that God hardened the 
heart of Pharaoh? "It is plain, to one acquainted 
with the Scriptures, that God's hardening of Pharaoh 
resulted from Pharaoh's having hardened himself ; and 
besides this, there is connected with this the additional 
fact, that, even though Pharaoh was ripe for the judg- 
ment of destruction, God makes the useless man still 
useful by allowing him to exist longer, and by raising 
him up, in order, through him, to declare his power 
and his mercy." — Lange. The following Dr. Riddle 
approvingly quotes from Dr. Schaff : ' ' All events of 
history, even all wicked deeds, stand under the guid- 
ance of God, without whose will not a hair falls from 
our heads, much less is a world-historical fact accom- 
plished. God does not cause the evil, but he bends 
and guides it to his glory." 2 

(3) Is God's decree of reprobation conditional ? 
If so, upon what is it conditioned ? Commenting on 
Rom. ix. 18, Lange says, " Previously, the question 
was, God's purposes preceding the birth of the chil- 
dren ; here, on the contrary, it is the free will with 
which God dealt with fixed character — Moses, on the 
one hand, Pharaoh on the other. If this free will be 
referred to a purpose of God, it is nevertheless not the 
purpose of election, which first settles personality, but 
the purpose of ordination, which, in the establishment 
of its destiny, presupposes its conduct. Consequently, 



1 p. 329 

2 Pages 319, 315. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 317 

because this purpose is conditional, God is still left 
free to have mercy on the real Moses, just as he is free 
to harden the still existing Pharaoh." " While human 
goodness is the effect of Divine love and grace, on the 
contrary, human wickedness is the cause of Divine 
hatred and abhorrence ; and on that account alone can 
it be the object of the punitive wrath and condemna- 
tory decree of God. Were evil the effect of his own 
agency, he would be obliged to condemn himself— 
which is irrational and blasphemous." — Schaff. 

This eminent scholar so emphatically repudiates 
one-half of Calvinism, that fairness demands a fuller 
elucidation of his views : ' ' The hate of God toward 
Esau and his race can not be sundered from their 
evil life, their obduracy against God and enmity to his 
people. It is true, verse 1 1 (with which, however, verse 
13 does not stand so closely connected as verse 12) 
seems to represent not only the love of God, but his 
hatred as transferred even into the mother's womb. 
But it must not be forgotten that, to the omniscient 
One, there is no distinction of time, and all the future 
is to him present. Besides, an essential distinction 
must be made between the relation of God to good 
and evil, to avoid unscriptural error. God loves the 
good, because he produces the very good that is in them : 
and he elects them, not on account of their faith and 
their holiness, but to faith and holiness. But it can not 
be said, on the other hand, that he hates the evil men 
because he produces the very evil that is in them ; 
for that would be absurd, and destroy his holiness." 
Again he says, ' ' There is an eternal predestination of 
believers unto holiness and blessedness, and hence 
they must ascribe all the glory of their redemption, 



318 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



from beginning to end, to the unmerited grace of God 

alone There is no Divine foreordination of 

sin as sin, although he has foreseen it from all eternity, 
and with respect to redemption, permitted it. while 
constantly overruling it to his purposes. Hence, 
those who are lost are lost through their own fault, 
and must blame their own unbelief, which rejects the 
means of salvation proffered them by God." 

Dr. Riddle remarks, " That these positions are not 
reconcilable by human logic is evident from the dis- 
cussions on the subject ; but this can not of itself, 
disprove their truth. It is the old and ever- recurring 
mystery of the origin of evil." 3 



3 p. 32Q. 



PART III. 



CALVINISM CONTRARY TO MAN'S MORAL 
NATURE. 

' ' There are within us certain moral instincts that 
are as valuable as anything that the Bible can teach 
us ; in fact, instincts of such a character that without 
them, no teachings of the Bible would be of any value. 
The Bible was made for man, not man for the Bible. 
These instincts are older than the Bible. These in- 
stincts are as divine as the Bible : as much God's own 
workmanship as the Bible, and the meaning of the 
Bible when there is any possible question of interpre- 
tation, is to be tested by them." 

— Rev. C. H. ParkhursL D. D. 



PART III. 



CHAPTER I. 

Calvinism Makes God the Author of Sin. 

This is a serious charge to bring against any system 
of thought. But in this instance the seriousness of 
the indictment is greatly augmented because Calvinism 
claims to be the true Theology which is consistently 
taught in the Divine Revelation. 

Throughout Part II. the reader has had ample 
opportunity to test this claim. He has seen that Cal- 
vinism not only denies its own assertions but also the 
clearly revealed and most emphatic declarations of 
God's Word. He has observed that even in the pro- 
found — and to many, inexplicable — subject of Divine 
Foreknowledge, the Calvinist has not the Scriptural 
verification so often and confidently claimed. In the 
remainder of this discussion I shall attempt to show 
that the Bible and man's moral nature speak the same 
language. 

SECTION I. 

No Absolute Evil in the Universe. 

The following from Dr. Wm. Bates and quoted ap- 
provingly by Dr. Samuel Hopkins shows how God 
and sin are related. " Sin, in its own nature, hath no 
tendency to good, it is not an apt medium, hath no 

proper efficacy to promote the glory of God ; so far 

321 



322 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

is it from a direct contributing to it, that, on the con- 
trary it is most real dishonor to him. But as a black 
ground in a picture, which in itself only defiles, when 
placed by art, sets off the brighter colors and brightens 
their beauty, so the evil of sin, which considered abso- 
lutely, obscures the glory of God, yet, by the over- 
ruling disposition of his providence, it serves to illus- 
trate his name, and makes it more glorious in the 
esteem of creatures. Without the sin of man, there 
had been no place for the most perfect exercise of his 
goodness." 1 

Following this Dr. Hopkins says : ' ' There can 
nothing take place under the care and government of 
an infinitely powerful, wise and good Being that is 
not on the whole wisest and best ; that is, for the gen- 
eral good; therefore, though there be things which are 
in themselves evil, even in their own nature and ten- 
dency, such as sin and misery ; yet, considered in 
their connection with the whole and as they are neces- 
sary in the best system to accomplish the greatest 
good, the most important and best ends, they are in 
this view desirable good, and not evil. And in this 
view ' there is no absolute evil in the universe. ' There 
are evils in themselves considered, but considered as 
connected with the whole, they are not evil but 
good." 2 

This reminds us of Pope's couplet 

"All discord, harmony, not understood ; 
All partial evil, universal good : " 

and of Carlyle's famous words that we are " to look 
on sin and crime as not hindrances, but to honor and 



1 " Harmony of the Divine Attributes." 3d. Edition, p. 81. 

2 "Works." Vol. I., p. 92. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 323 

love them as furtherances of what is holy." Doubt- 
less Dr. Hopkins would have indignantly denied the 
charge of pantheism, but beyond all controversy his 
thought is permeated with its spirit. As such it has 
its complete denial in the words of the prophet Isaiah, 
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil ; 
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness : 
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter " (v. 20). 

SECTION 11. 

God the Efficient Cause of Sin. 

L,et us continue the testimony of Dr. Hopkins : he 
says," God does superintend and direct with regard to 
every instance of sin. He orders how much sin there 
shall be, and effectually restrains and prevents all that 
which he would not have take place. Men are, with 
respect to this, absolutely under his direction and con- 
trol." From this he proceeds to show that sin could 
not have originated in the creature, for why should the 
will put forth a volition contrary to the divinely consti- 
tuted nature ? Nor can it be in the sin itself, for upon 
that supposition the effect is its own cause, hence we 
must look to Him who is the First Cause of everything; 
speaking of the sinner he says, " Something must have 
taken place previous to his sin, and in which the sin- 
ner had no hand with which his sin was so connected 
as to render it certain that sin would take place just 
as it does ; " his conclusion is, " Moral evil could not 
exist unless it were the will of God, and his choice 
that it should exist rather than not. And from this it 
is certain that it is wisest and best in his view that sin 
should exist. And in thus willing what was wisest 



324 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

and best, and foreordaining that it should come to pass, 
God exercised his wisdom and goodness ; and in this 
view and sense is really the origin and cause of moral 
evil, as really as he is of the existence of anything that 
he wills, however inconceivable the mode and manner 
of the origin and existence of this event may be, and 
however different from that of any other. ' ' 3 

Of Pharaoh, Dr. Nathanael Emmons says God 
"determined, therefore, to operate on his heart itself 
and cause him to put forth certain evil exercises in 
the view of certain external motives"; again, "If 
saints can work out their salvation, under a positive 
influence of the Deity, then sinners can work out their 
own destruction under his positive influence." Of 
Adam he says, " His first sin was a free, voluntary 
exercise, produced by a divine operation in the view 
of motives." 

Meeting an objection which was, and even now is 
popular with a certain class of Calvinists, Emmons 
says, " Many are disposed to make a distinction here, 
and to ascribe only the good actions of men to the 
divine agency, while they ascribe their bad ones to the 
divine permission. But there appears no ground for 
this distinction in Scripture or reason. Men are no 
more capable of acting independently of God in one 
instance than in another. If they need any kind or 
degree of divine agency in doing good, they need pre- 
cisely the same kind and degree of divine agency in 
doing evil. This is the dictate of reason and the 
Scripture says the same." 4 

Dr. H. B. Smith says of Emmons, " The absolute, 



3 Pages 98 109. 

4 " Works." Vol. II., pp. 392, 420, 423, 441. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 325 

supreme, irresistible, all-embracing, all-producing, all- 
sustaining energy of the divine will, making every 
event and act march to the music of the divine glory 
is unquestionably the predominant idea of this most 
' consistent ' of Calvinists. ' ' Doubtless this is ' ' simple' ' 
and comprehensive, yet " it is a very mechanical and 
arbitrary hypothesis." 5 

Calvin says, ' ' If God merely foresaw human events, 
and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his 
pleasure, there might be room for agitating the ques- 
tion, how far this foreknowledge amounts to necessity ; 
but since he foresees the things which are to happen 
simply because he has decreed that they are so to 
happen, it is vain to debate about orescience while it 
is clear that all events take place by his sovereign 
appointment." 6 

In Melancthon's commentary on Romans of 1525, 
we are taught that 4 ' God wrought all things, evil as 
well as good ; that he was the author of David's adul- 
tery, and the treason of Judas, as well as of Paul's 
conversion." 7 

section in. 

The Infra or Sublapsarians declare that the Views of 
the Supralapsariaiis legitimately make God the Author 
of Sin. 

Noticing this charge, Dr. John Dick says, "lac- 
knowledge that this horrible inference seems to be 
naturally deduced from the Supralapsarian scheme, 
which represents the introduction of sin as the ap- 



5 "Faith and Philosophy," pp. 226, 227. 

6 "Inst." B. III., Ch. XXIII., Sec. 6. 

7 Bledsoe's " Theodicy," p. 91 



326 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S LAW 

pointed means of executing the purpose of the Almighty 
respecting the final doom of his creatures;" again, 
"There is something in this system repugnant to our 
ideas of the character of God, whom it represents 
rather as a despot than the Father of the universe. ' ' 8 
Venema testifies as follows : ' 1 The Supralapsarian 

system has no foundation to rest upon Their 

whole system is completely irreconcilable with the 
justice of God. Nay, it is in direct opposition to that 
justice which demands that when punishment is ex- 
acted, or when any one is destined to destruction, 
there be a reason founded in equity for adopting such 

a course But how inconsistent is it with his 

justice thus arbitrarily to appoint men to such an end, 
and for the purpose of carrying it into effect to decree 
their fall." 9 

Isaac Watts says, "The doctrine of reprobation, 
in the most severe and absolute sense of it, stands in 
a direct contradiction to all our notions of kindness 
and love to others, in which the blessed God is set 
forth as our example, that our reason can not tell how 
to receive it. " 1 

In previous pages the reader has been informed of 
Dr. SchafPs view : but for emphasis I will here repro- 
duce a few words : he says, " Supralapsarianism . . . . 
with fearful logical consistency, makes God the author 
of the fall of Adam, hence of sin." 2 

Dr. Hodge opposes this scheme because "it is not 
consistent with the Scriptural exhibition of the char- 
acter of God. He is declared to be a God of mercy 

8 "lectures," pp. 373, 369. 

a " Institutes," pp. 310, 311, 312. 

1 " Works." Vol. III., p. 476. 

2 Range's " Romans," p. 329. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



327 



and justice. But it is not compatible with these 
divine attributes that men should be foreordained to 
misery and eternal death as innocent, that is, before 
they had apostatized from God." 3 

In concluding this section, the reader's serious con- 
sideration is invited to this clearly established fact, viz. , 
that one class of Calvinists is charged by another class 
with holding views which legitimately make God the 
author of sin. As we continue our investigation, we 
shall be reminded of David's exclamation, "Behold, 
how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell 
together in unity. ' ' Possibly we shall see that fulfill- 
ment of the Saviour's words, ' ' Every kingdom divided 
against itself, is brought to desolation, and every city 
or house divided against itself, shall not stand" 
(Matt. xii. 25). 

SECTION IV. 

How Some Calvinists Shozv that God is not the Author 
of Sin. 

Dr. Griffin is more cautious than Emmons and Hop- 
kins ; while he earnestly advocates the doctrine of 
Divine Efficiency, he is quite guarded in his expres- 
sions concerning God's relation to sin. He thinks the 
Deity "has the absolute control of mind in all its 
common operations," but does not inform us of the 
method. ' ' Whether he does this by the mere force of 
motives adapted to the existing temper, or sometimes 
by a lower sort of efficiency, not however productive 
of sin, I will not determine. ' ' So far Dr. Griffin can 
not be said to teach, directly or indirectly, that God is 



3 " Theology," Vol. II., p. 319 



328 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S LAW 

the author of sin. But in my opinion such is not the 
case when he is explaining how sinless creatures are 
induced to do wrong. This is worthy of careful atten- 
tion. " If sinless creatures are not dependent on God 
for holiness, how will you account for the fall of any ? " 
After quoting from Whitby to the effect that the great- 
est good proposed, or the greatest evil threatened, when 
equally believed and reflected on, will always move the 
will to accept or refuse, he says, "Thus while the 
heart is right and the mind free, proper motives, set 
clearly before the understanding, will certainly awaken 
right affections. And temptations to sin while the 

heart is right, will instantly be rejected How 

then can a holy being apostatize ? Not until the heart 
ceases to be inclined to fall in with the motive which 
moved it before. That cessation can not be produced 
by good motives, and before it takes place bad motives 
can not operate. It can not, therefore, be the effect of 
motives. It must result from some influence, or some 
withdrawment of influence, behind the scene. If it 
results from a positive influence, God must be the 
efficient cause of sin ; if it results from the withdraw- 
ment of an influence, the influence withdrawn was 
that which before inclined the heart to holy action ; 
and that is the very efficiency for which we plead. 
Without resorting to efficiency and its withdrawment, 
how can we account for the fall of holy beings ? " 4 

Here is undersigned testimony as to the legitimate 
tendency of Emmons' theology. Dr. Griffin concedes 
that God must be the efficient cause of sin if he exerts 
a positive influence. His own view is but a step re- 
moved from that of Emmons, for he maintains that 



4 " Divine Efficiency," pp. 95, 167, 168. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 329 

the creature could not possibly sin were it not for the 
divine withdrawment. 

This is a bold position. Dr. Griffin does not even 
pretend that this withdrawment is because of any- 
thing evil in the creature. Nay, he most emphati- 
cally declares that without this withdrawment the 
creature can not possibly sin. Why then, should God 
withdraw his influence ? Clearly for no other reason 
than that he desires sin. This, it must be confessed, 
solves the mysterious problem of the existence of sin. 
But what a solution ! God could have prevented every 
creature from sinning. Nay, there was not the least 
danger that any soul would have sinned had this di- 
vine influence been continued. Hence, that sin may 
come, that this earth may be made as much the home 
of Satan as is possible, this eminent theologian con- 
ceives God as withdrawing the plank on which his 
child is standing, so that he may fall into the clutches 
of the arch enemy. Why is this not blasphemy? 
Why does it not make God the author of sin ? Be- 
cause it is theology. Because the Calvinist claims — 
as I shall show in due time — that God can do any- 
thing, and no man dare say, This is wrong. In the 
same circumstances a man would be arrested and tried 
for murder. 

Let us now see how Toplady avoids the difficulty. 
" It is a known and very just maxim of the schools, 
effectus sequitur causam proximam. ' An effect follows 
from and is to be ascribed to the last immediate cause 
that produced it.' Thus, for instance, if I hold a 
book, or a stone in my hand, my holding it is the im- 
mediate cause of its not falling ; but if I let go, my 
letting go is not the immediate cause of its falling ; it 



330 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

is carried downward by its own gravity, which is, 
therefore, the causa proxima effectus, the proper and 
immediate cause of its descent. It is true, if I had 
kept my hold of it, it would not have fallen ; yet, still 
the immediate, direct cause of its fall is its own 
weight, not my quitting my hold. The application 
of this to the providence of God as concerned in sin- 
ful events is easy. Without God there could have 
been no creation ; without creation, no creatures ; with- 
out creatures, no sin. Yet is not sin chargeable on 
God, for effectus sequitur causam proximam." 5 

A man enters your room at midnight : stealthily 
approaching your bedside he holds a keen blade di- 
rectly over your heart. Carefully measuring the dis- 
tance, calmly calculating on the law of gravity, with- 
out giving the knife the least momemtum, he finally 
yields his grasp, and his purpose is accomplished. 
As he walks away in the darkness, a feeling of awe 
comes over him : his conscience is at work : it is say- 
ing, You are a murderer, you are a murderer. Star- 
tled by this bold accusation, he cries out, Who says 
that ? It is a lie. I did not kill him ; for effectus se- 
quitur proximam" With this eminently truthful and 
consistent remark he retires to his virtuous couch, and 
is soon lost in the sleep of innocence. 

Moreover, I fail to see the logical force of Toplady's 
assertion, ' ' Without creation no creature, without 
creature no sin." It is true, Calvinists are very zeal- 
ous for the Divine glory, and consequently have 
always maintained that sin enhances God's honor. 
Surely, he could have had creatures without sin, for 
according to this orthodox theology, God can do all 



5 " Works," p. 699. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



331 



things. Hence Toplady must mean that God, desir- 
ing to increase his glory through sin, made the creat- 
ure the legitimate vehicle for its introduction. 

Dr. Dick is disposed to be fair with his opponents : 
of this subject he says, " Here we come to a question 
which has engaged the attention, and exercised the 
ingenuity, and perplexed the wits of men in every age. 
If God has foreordained whatever comes to pass, the 
whole series of events is necessary and human liberty 
is taken away. Men are passive instruments in the 
hands of their Maker ; they can do nothing but what 
they are secretly and irresistibly impelled to do ; they 
are not, therefore, responsible for their actions ; and 
God is the author of sin." 

This is the Arminian objection, and our thanks are 
due to Dr. Dick for its admirable arrangement. How 
does he meet it? He notices several methods, but 
does not deem them very satisfactory : his solution is 
this. " It is a more intelligible method to explain the 
subject by the doctrine which makes liberty consist in 
the power of acting according to the prevailing incli- 
nation, or the motive which appears strongest to the 
mind. Those actions are free which are the effects 
of volition. In whatever manner the state of mind 
which gave rise to volition has been produced, the 
liberty of the agent is neither greater nor less. It is 
his will alone which is to be considered, and not the 
means by which it has been determined. 

If God foreordained certain actions, and placed 
men in such circumstances that the actions would cer- 
tainly take place agreeably to the laws of the mind, 
men are, nevertheless moral agents, because they act 
voluntarily and are responsible for the actions which 



332 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

consent has made their own. Liberty does not con- 
sist in the power of acting or not acting, but in acting 
from choice. The choice is determined by something 
in the mind itself, or by something external influencing 
the mind ; but whatever is the cause, the choice makes 
the action free, and the agent accountable. If this 
definition of liberty be admitted, you will perceive 
that it is possible to reconcile the freedom of the will 
with absolute decrees. ' ' 6 

A brief consideration will disclose the sophism of 
this argument: (i) Admitting that his definition of 
liberty be correct the solution does not solve the 
problem, our author being the criterion : after the 
above quotation he says, " But we have not got rid of 
every difficulty : by this theory human actions appear 
to be as necessary as the motions of matter according 
to the laws of gravitation and attraction ; and man 
seems to be a machine, conscious of his movements, 
and consenting to them, but impelled by something 
different from himself. ' ' 

Surely this is a frank confession and I see no reason 
why it should not be accepted and the so-called solu- 
tion rejected. (2)1 by no means accept Dr. Dick's 
definition of liberty : if liberty does not consist in the 
power to choose, or to refrain from choosing at any 
given time, then man is not free : then not only does 
he seem to be, but in fact he is "a machine, conscious 
of his movements, and consenting to them, but im- 
pelled by something different from himself." The 
doctrine of the self-determining power of the will, 
or the power of contrary choice, is no longer a mere 
Arminian postulate. It is now quite universally con- 

e " Lectures," pp. 357, 358- 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



333 



ceded, not only by independent thinkers, but also by 
eminent Calvinists. Cousin says, " I am conscious of 
this sovereign power of the will. I feel in myself, before 
its determination, the force that can determine itself 
in such a manner, or in such another. At the same 
time I will this or that, I am equally conscious of the 
power to will the opposite : I am conscious of being 
master of my resolution, of the ability to arrest it, 
continue it, repress it. " 7 

" By the liberty of a Moral agent," says Reid, " I 
understand a power over the determinations of his own 
will. If in any action he had power to will what he 
did, or not to will it, in that action he is free. But if, 
in every voluntary action, the determination of his will 
be the necessary consequence of something involun- 
tary in the state of his mind, or of something in his 
external circumstance he is not free ; he has not what 
I call the Liberty of a Moral agent, but is subject to 
necessity." 8 

Although Dr. McCosh holds to a certain kind of 
mental causation, his testimony on this point is em- 
phatic. " When it is said that the will is free, there 
is more declared than simply that we can do what we 
please. It is implied, farther, that the choice lies 
within the voluntary power of the mind, and that we 
could have willed otherwise if we had pleased. The 
mind has not only the power of action, but the an- 
terior, and far more important power of choice. The 
freedom of the mind does not consist in the effect fol- 
lowing the volition, as for instance, in the movement 
of the arm following the will to move it, but the 

7 Cocker's " Theistic Conception of the World," p. 382. 
s Fleming's " Moral Philosphy," p. 194 



334 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

power of the mind to form the volition in the exercise 

of its voluntary functions In making this 

choice we are no doubt swayed by considerations, but 
these have their force given them by the will itself, 
which may set a high value upon them, but which 
may also, if it please, set them at defiance." 9 

Dr. Dick's definition of liberty is decidedly falla- 
cious, as also are his conclusions, for (3) even grant- 
ing the correctness of his definition, the solution does 
not touch the real point at issue. For the sake of the 
argument let me grant that upon his supposition man 
is responsible for his volitions. Suppose I concede 
that so far as man is concerned, no temptation what- 
soever, no matter how, or by whom presented, can in 
the least palliate the sin of yielding. What then ? 
Why, clearly, this pertains to the individual's guilt, 
and to him alone. But the real question is this : 
What is God's relation to the tempted ? Granting that 
the creature is guilty, does Dr. Dick's supposition free 
God from a foul imputation ? I claim it does not, for 
it is reasonably and Scripturally true that he who 
tempts — in the sense now under consideration — to sin, 
he who induces a sinful volition is a party to the trans- 
action, and hence, is so far criminally guilty. He 
who tempts to evil has previously determined to seek 
the harm of the tempted, and consequently must bear 
his share of the blame. Balaam seduced the Israel- 
ites into sin : they were guilty for yielding to his solic 
itations and were punished. Was the prophet 
innocent? The Scriptures convey the opposite opin- 
ion ; his doctrine is condemned in Rev. ii. 14 ; he is 
said to have loved the wages of unrighteousness (11. 



9 •' Divine Government," 1870, p, 271. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



335 



Pet. ii. 15) ; was slain as an enemy of the people of 
God (Num. xxxi. 8). 

All human volitions are to be referred to some 
source as their legitimate cause. So far forth as this 
source is predicated of God, to that extent does this 
affirmation make him the author of sin. 

The following testimony given by the Princeton 
Essayists is an admirable rejoinder to the argument of 
Dr. Dick. "It is, moreover, alleged, that we are so 
constituted, that we judge of the morality of actions 

without any reference to their cause This 

theory has manj^ advocates in our country and is con- 
sidered an improvement of the old Calvinistic theory. 
But it is repugnant to common sense, and the argu- 
ments employed in its defense are sophistical. Sin is 
sin, by whomsoever produced." 1 

Let us now examine the views of President Ed- 
wards. 2 ' ' If by the author of sin is meant the per- 
mitter, or a not-hinderer of sin, and at the same time, 
a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, 
for wise, holy, and most excellent ends and purposes, 

1 "Theological Essays From Princeton Review," 1846, pp. 73-75. 

2 It is not necessary that the reader be detained by a consideration of 
the views of Edwards concerning liberty, and the will as swayed* by 
the strongest motive, or the greatest apparent good, because (1) Dick's 
doctrine is identical with that of Edwards', from whom, it is more than 
probable, he obtained it. (2) The acceptance of the doctrine that the will 
is self-determining, has the power of contrary choice, necessarily over- 
throws the Edwardean theory. (3) It is now generally conceded that the 
celebrated dictum ot Edwards, has not been, and is not capable of being, 
demonstrated. McCosh says, "In asserting that the will is swayed by 

motives as thus defined, we are affirming nothing to the point We 

are making no progress : we are swinging upon a hinge in advancing and 
readvancing such maxims." " Divine Government," p 273, note. See also 
Article "The Problem of the Human Will," by Dr. Henry Calderwood, 
"Princeton Review," September, 1879, p. 343. Hodge's " Theology," Vol. 
II., p. 289. 



336 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

that sin, if it be permitted or not hindered, will most 
certainly and infallibly follow : I say, if this be all 
that is meant, by being the author of sin, I do not 
deny that God is the author of sin — though I dislike 
and reject the phrase, as that which by use and cus- 
tom is apt to carry another sense." Again, "If 
God disposes all events, so that the infallible existence 
is decided by his Providence, then he, doubtless, thus 
orders and decides things knowingly and on design. 
God does not do what he does, nor order what he 
orders, accidentally or unawares : either without or 
beside his intention." 3 Here are four affirmations; 
viz., (i) God has wise, holy and most excellent ends 
to be secured by means of sin. ( 2 ) He orders or dis- 
poses events in such a way that sin will infallibly 
occur. (3) He does this designedly : and (4) He is 
not the author of sin. 

Now, in all seriousness and fairness, I ask the 
reader, Is this, can this be true ? Your child is well, 
and free from all danger of sickness. Scarlet fever is 
in the neighborhood : you do not warn the child of 
the danger, nor do you exercise any power to keep 
him away from the contagious disease. Nay, you are 
using your knowledge so as to have that child led — 
freely to be sure — into the danger in order that he 
may imbibe the poison and die. You are successful, 
and are complacently enjoying your enhanced glory, 
when you are arrested by an indignant community on 
the charge of deliberate murder. This, however, you 
deny. You admit that he died under your govern- 
ment ; that you purposely led him into danger ; that 
you designed his death. But you are no murderer 



3 "Works," Kd. 1856, Vol. II., pp. 157, 179- 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



337 



because having certain good and wise ends to secure 
by his death, your deed was right. 

I think the examination would stop. Such a jus- 
tification would outrage the sense of justice in the 
breast of a heathen. Public opinion would inexorably 
demand your speedy execution. Yet such is the pitia- 
ble excuse for the Divine procedure offered by this most 
celebrated American theologian. Listen : "I answer, 
that for God to dispose and permit evil in the manner 
that has been spoken of, is not to do evil that good 
may come ; for it is not to do evil at all. In order to 
a thing's being morally evil, there must be one of 
these things belonging to it ; either it must be a thing 
unfit and unsuitable in its own nature ; or it must 
have a bad tendency ; or it must proceed from an evil 
disposition and be done for an evil end. But neither 
of these things can be attributed to God's ordering 
and permitting such events as the immoral acts of 
creatures, for good ends." 

I do not wonder that, as Chalmers has said, " Con- 
spicuous infidels and semi-infidels .... have tri- 
umphed in the book of Edwards as that which set a 
conclusive seal on their principles, ' ' for if much of his 
writing is not logically blasphemous, I am ignorant of 
the meaning of the term. He justifies his position by 
three arguments or affirmations, viz., (i) That it is 
eminently fit and proper that God should order and 
permit the sinful acts of his creatures. ( 2 ) To do 
this is not of a bad, but rather of a most glorious ten- 
dency. (3) The motive is good and the actual result 
is good. 5 Here are as many fallacies as points. Let 
us candidly consider them. He first maintains it is fit 



5 p. 164. 



338 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

for God to order and permit sin because he is " the 
Being who has infinite wisdom and is the Maker, 
Owner and Supreme Governor of the world." This 
is based on the assumption that because God is 
infinitely wise and because he is the Governor of 
the world he may do that which in other cir- 
cumstances would be wrong. This he substan- 
tially acknowledges when he says, " It may be 
unfit, and so immoral, for any other beings to go 
about to order this affair. ' ' Why ? ' ' Because they are 
not possessed of a wisdom that in any manner fits 
them for it ; and, in other respects they are not fit 
to be trusted with this affair ; nor does it belong to 
them, they not being the owners and lords of the uni- 
verse." 

Beyond all controversy this part of the argument 
assumes that infinite wisdom and power make right. 
This was doubtless considered a sound principle in 
the time of Edwards, but as we shall presently see, it 
has long since been rejected as philosophically and 
theologically pernicious. His second argument con- 
tradicts the first. If, as he here affirms, it is best that 
sin "should come to pass" then why should it be 
immoral for any other being "to go about to order 
this affair" ? To be sure, such a person might be 
kindly reproved for meddling with matters .outside 
his sphere, but if it be best that moral evil should 
come, certainly it is too strong language to call him 
immoral. Nay, according to Edwards himself, this 
intermeddler can not be immoral, for "what is aimed 
at is good, and good is the actual issue, in the final 
result of things." True, this last remark is applied 
to God by this great metaphysician, but I affirm if a 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



339 



thing is good because the aim is good and the issue 
good, the principle is valid for man as well as for God. 
Moreover one can not see why God should hate moral 
evil when it is working out such glorious results. Says 
Edwards, "There is no inconsistence in supposing 
that God may hate a thing as it is in itself and con- 
sidered simply as evil, and yet that it may be his will 
it should come to pass considering all consequences." 
If this be true, God " designedly" wills the permis- 
sion of that which he eternally hates, and, therefore, 
forbids. The reader has noticed this absurdity in the 
discussion of the Atonement. It is one of the fatal 
positions of Calvinism. It is an essential part of the 
system. All attempts to evade it have resulted in 
unequivocal contradictions or in arguments which can 
not endure the test of sober thought. To say God 
does not will sin as sin, is of no avail. To hate that 
which is willed, to forbid that which is designed, and 
which terminates in the most glorious results, con- 
found all intellectual and moral distinctions. Sooner 
or later, the heart and conscience of the race will re- 
pudiate the theology which indorses such methods. 
His third position is identical with the maxims of the 
Jesuits. There is nothing but a verbal difference be- 
tween them. Sin is made the means of good according 
to Edwards as deception is the means of accomplishing 
the holy (? ) purposes of the Jesuits. Have they not 
said, We do not will, nor select evil things because 
they are evil, or even as evil, but we use them as the 
occasion or means of obtaining that which is for the 
best results, and which we could not otherwise obtain ? 
Lastly, what a confession for a Calvinist to make ! 
That the Infinite God, whose power is absolute, whose 



34Q CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



wisdom is past finding out, should be so weak and 
inefficient as to be obliged to resort to the aid of moral 
evil. Where is the much boasted divine attribute of 
Omnipotence ? 

SECTION V. 
God's Will Not the Criterion of Right. 

The previous section involved the questions, Is a 
thing necessarily right because God does it ? What is 
the ultimate standard of right ? In the previous pages 
I tried to show that the arguments of the Calvinist 
by which he sought the Divine vindication were ille- 
gitimate because if the same things which are 
predicated of God were done by man he would be 
universally condemned by the instinctive sense of jus- 
tice. Doubtless the Arminian agrees with the Calvin- 
ist in asserting that God's will is always right. I do 
not believe that God will ever do wrong. This, how- 
ever, is one thing, and an entirely different remark 
which is often affirmed by the Calvinist, viz., that 
God does as is predicated and therefore we must not 
reply against God. This I emphatically deny. But 
how shall the question be settled ? Clearly by no 
other wa3 T than that here proposed. 

First find what is the ultimate criterion of right, 
and then discover, if possible, what are the sponta 
neous affirmations of man's moral nature. If they sus- 
tain the arguments of the Calvinist, then I must and 
do acknowledge my error. On the contrar} T , if they 
do not thus uphold him, he must be fundamentally 
wrong. Let Us notice : I. What is the question ? It 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



341 



is not that God can not do things which would be 
wrong for man to do. No sane person will undertake 
to defend this position. Beyond all controversy it is 
right for God to do many things which would be very 
wrong for man to do. As Creator, Preserver and 
Judge of the universe, God has certain powers which 
necessarily can not be assumed by any creature. It is 
not necessary to enumerate these things. The mind 
instantly perceives the truth of the proposition. The 
real question is this : Has man any rights which 
his Maker is in duty bound to regard ? If God says 
one thing and does the opposite, if he brings his 
children into sin while they are innocent, and then 
punishes them for that which he was the direct or 
indirect cause of their doing, and which he desired 
them to do, are the moral sentiments to be choked and 
condemned because they spontaneously array them- 
selves against such proceedings ? 

II. What are some of the consequences deduci- 
ble from the proposition, God's will is the criterion of 
right? (1) It robs the Deity of moral character. If 
his will makes right, then anything which he might 
choose would become morally obligatory. Instead of 
being guided by moral considerations his will would 
make those considerations, and hence he could not be 
said to be holy. For holiness is the result of a holy 
choice, which necessarily presupposes something holy 
to be chosen. (2) If God's will makes right, then we 
have only to suppose a change in that will, and 
our moral distinctions would instantly vanish. Or, 
God might will differently in different parts of the 
universe, and then would follow as a consequence the 
remark of John Stuart Mill that somewhere in the 



34 2 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

universe two and two might make five. True, there 
is no probability of the Divine Will thus changing, 
but philosophy and theology demand a broader and 
more secure foundation than such a supposition. (3) 
Again, if God's will makes right, we have only to 
imagine that he had refrained from willing, and as a 
consequence all actions would have been the same. 
Theft, impurity, murder, the same as honesty, chastity 
and love. 

III. Rejecting as we must, this first supposition, 
that the divine will makes right, where shall we place 
the ultimate standard ? In the nature of things, or 
the nature of God ? In favor of the former there are 
many eminent metaphysicians and theologians. Such 
names as Cudworth, Price, Clark, Butler, Reid, Stew- 
art, Wardlaw and Mackintosh are certainly not to be 
despised nor treated with little respect. With these 
philosophers agree many celebrated Calvinists. Em- 
mons in a sermon on " The Essential and Immutable 
Distinction Between Right and Wrong" says, 4 'As 
virtue and vice, therefore, take their origin from the 
nature of things, so the difference between moral good 
and moral evil is as immutable as the nature of things, 

from which it results The difference between 

virtue and vice does not depend upon the will of God, 
because his will can not make nor destroy this immut- 
able difference. And it is no more to the dishonor of 
God to suppose that he can not, than that he can per- 
form impossibilities." 6 

Dr. Robt. J. Breckenridge says, "To us no doubt 

6 As quoted in Dr. H. B. Smith's " Faith and Philosophy," p. 223. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



343 



all that God wills is right ; but in God himself there 
is a very wide difference between saying, he wills any- 
thing because it is right — that is, because it accords 
with all his Perfections — and saying anything is right, 
that is, accords with his Perfections, merely because he 
wills it. A distinction which draws after it — remote 
and subtle as it may be supposed to be — the whole 
nature of moral good and evil, and the whole economy 
of salvation. For the necessary and immutable dis- 
tinction between good and evil ; and the foundation of 
all religion both in God and human nature ; and the 
rule of God's infinite justice ; and the need of a Sav- 
iour ; are all subverted and every logical foundation 
taken away from them as soon as the mere will of God 
is substituted for the perfection of all his attributes, and 
the Holiness of his adorable nature, as the ultimate 
ground of moral distinctions, and the fundamental 
basis of right actions. Good and evil depend on law, 
not on nature, was an apothegm of the ancient athe- 
ists — who only substituted nature for God in the prop- 
osition. The number is not small amongst Christian 
teachers, who, under the guise of evangelical contempt 
for human reason and extraordinary devotion to the 
honor of God's revealed will, still retain in a somewhat 
different logical form, and perhaps, in a somewhat 
mitigated degree, the essential poison of this detesta- 
ble paradox. ' ' 7 

Chalmers thus puts the question : ' 1 Wherein is it 
that the Tightness of morality lies ? or w T hence is it 
that this Tightness is derived ? Whether, more par- 
ticularly it have an independent Tightness of its own, 



7 " The Knowledge of God, Objectively Considered," p. 293. 



344 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

or it be right only because God wills it ? It might be 
proper to state that between the two terms of the alter- 
native as last put, our clear preference — or rather, our 
absolute and entire conviction — is on the side of the 
former. We hold that morality has a stable, inherent, 
and essential Tightness in itself, and that anterior to or 
apart from, whether the tacit or expressed will of any 
being in the universe — that it had a subsistence and a 
character before that any creatures were made who 
could be the subjects of a will or a government at all, 
and when no other existed besides God himself to 
exemplify its virtues and its graces." Again he says, 
"Now it is here that we join issue with our antagon- 
ists, and affirm that God is no more the Creator of 
virtue than he is of truth — that justice and benevolence 
were virtues previous to any forthputting of will or 
jurisprudence on his part, and that he no more ordained 
them to be virtues than he ordained that the three 
angles of a triangle should be equal to two right 
angles. ' ' 8 

To the same effect speaks Dr. McCosh, who says, 
' ' Divines often put it in the wrong place psychologic- 
ally and logically ; and represent the Divine Will 
and the Divine Command as the ground of virtue. 
Doubtless, they intend thereby to benefit the cause of 
religion, but they are in reality doing it serious injury. 
The proper statement is that a deed is good, not be- 
cause God wills it, but that he wills it because it is 
good. To reverse this order, is to unsettle, as it 
appears to us, the foundations of morality." 9 Sub- 

8 "Institutes of Theology." Vol. I., pp. 22, 23. 

9 " Divine Government," p. 321. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



345 



stantially, the same view was held by Charnock, 
Edwards, Bellamy, Dwight, and Robert Hall. 

It is, however, regarded by some eminent scholars 
as liable to one serious objection ; namely, it makes 
the right or the good outside, and therefore independ- 
ent of God. Hence, they conceive the ultimate stand- 
ard of ethics to be in the Nature of God, which they 
think escapes the difficulty just now named, and also 
the dangerous position of making the Divine Will the 
criterion of morality. Such was the real view of 
Chalmers and, if I mistake not, is taught in the works 
of Dr. Mark Hopkins — with one modification — the 
substituting of ' ' character ' ' for 1 1 nature ' ' of Deity. 
On this supposition the will of God would choose in 
accordance with his nature, thus making his will 
ethically right. 1 If God's will does not make right, 
but if on the contrary it is guided by the law of right, 
it is fair to suppose the free creatures of God are simi- 
larly constituted. Such is the fact as demonstrated 
by experience. The moral nature of man is the 
basis of all communication between heaven and earth : 
A fallen race demands divine interposition. The 
written revelation supplements, but does not contra- 
dict that which is declared in the very constitution of 
man. Should it do this, that would at once suffice to 
show its spuriousness. Hence, as a fact the Bible 
always assumes that man has some knowledge of right 



i Dorner holds " that God is a moral being first, by necessity of 
nature ; secondly, by his own free act , and thirdly, that on the ground of 
both together, he is eternally self-conscious, free and holy love." Marten- 
sen's position is quite similar. God "wills the good, because it is good in 
itself ; not, however, as something extant outside of him, but because the 
good is in his own eternal essence." 



346 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

and wrong. It appeals to this instinctive sense of right. 
It urges the claims of God because they are inherently 
right. It represents God as being not merely willing, 
but anxious to meet his wayward children, and by 
calm reason convince them of their need and of his 
love. 

While it is not denied that the Scriptures — and 
especially the Holy Spirit — quicken, enlighten and 
guide the moral judgments, it is emphatically true 
that in their fundamental utterances, they are as inde- 
pendent of the written revelation as God's nature is 
independent of his will. Consequently, it is not irrev- 
erent for man to expect that God will always do right. 
It is not blasphemous to subject the arguments of 
those who seek his vindication to a rigid test, and to 
examine them in the light of the spontaneous affirma- 
tions of the moral faculty. 

The principle for which I am here contending is 
clearly seen and forcibly expressed by Edwards, who 
says, ' ' We never could have an}' notion what under- 
standing or volition, love or hatred are, either in created 
spirits or in God, if we had never experienced what 
understanding and volition, love and hatred are in our 
own minds. Knowing what they are by conscious- 
ness, we can add degrees, and deny limits, and remove 
changeableness and other imperfections, and ascribe 
them to God, which is the only way we come to be 
capable of conceiving of anything in the Deity." 2 

And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and 
shall assure our hearts before him. For if our heart 



2 "Works." Vol. II., p. 287 



AND MAN'S MORAI, NATURE. 



347 



condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and 
knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart condemn 
us not, then have we confidence toward God " (i. John 
iii. 19-21). 

If my reasoning be correct we have now reached 
the position where we can fairly decide to what extent 
the Calvinistic arguments vindicate the Divine Gov- 
ernment. In the previous section the reader had the 
opportunity of examining the views of Griffin, Top- 
lady, Dick and Edwards. The first of this celebrated 
company maintains that God withdrew his influence 
from Adam in order that sin might occur. Mark, not 
for sin, because on his theory sin was impossible prior 
to that withdrawment. The second adopts the scho- 
lastic maxim that " an effect follows from, and is to be 
ascribed to, the last immediate cause that produced 
it. ' ' If God had kept hold of the soul there would 
have been no fall, and if no fall, no sin ; " Yet is not 
sin chargeable on God : for effectus sequitur causam 
proximam." 

The third view not only adopts a fallacious defini- 
tion of liberty, but claims that a tempter to a sinful act 
is not to be held as a particeps criminis to the transac- 
tion : while Edwards maintains that God can design- 
edly order sin without being in the least contaminated 
thereby ; although the very same thing in man would 
" be unfit and so immoral." 

Now I claim that these positions do not vindicate 
the character of God, as predicated by the Calvinists. 
I claim that they are everlastingly at war with man's 
moral convictions : that in the same circumstances 
the spontaneous affirmations of human justice would 



34§ CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

unqualifiedly condemn any man guilty of such acts : 
that God is not, can not be such a Father, of whom it 
is said, "He can not be tempted with evil, neither 
tempteth he any man." 

SECTION VI. 

The Infj'alapsarian Scheme. Does it solve the Proble?n f 

Dr. Robert Aikman has said that all Presbyterians 
are "either Supralapsarians or Sublapsarians— or, as 
Dr. Hodge prefers to say of the latter, Infralapsarians." 
These terms refer to the supposed order of the decrees. 
The Supralapsarians maintain that 4 ' God in order to 
manifest his grace and justice selected from creatable 
men (z. e. , from men to be created) a certain number 
to be vessels of wrath. In the order of thought, elec- 
tion and reprobation precede the purpose to create and 
to permit the fall. God creates some to be saved, and 
others to be lost. This scheme is called supralapsa- 
rian because it supposes that men as unfallen, or before 
the fall, are the objects of election to eternal life, and 

foreordination to eternal death According to 

the infralapsarian doctrine, God, with the design to 
reveal his own glory, that is, the perfections of his 
own nature, determined to create the world ; secondly, 
to permit the fall of man ; thirdly, to elect from the 
mass of fallen men a multitude whom no man could 
number as ' vessels of mercy ' ; fourthly, to send his 
Son for their redemption ; and fifthly, to leave the 
residue of mankind, as he left the fallen angels, to 
suffer the just punishment of their sins." 3 

3 Hodge's " Theology." Vol. II., pp, 316, 319. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURK. 



349 



According to Hagenbach, " . . . . the name Su- 
pralapsarians, .... does not occur prior to the 
Synod of Dort." This must be understood as refer- 
ring to the name per se, for from its first introduc- 
tion the doctrine has had many advocates. It was 
certainly taught by Calvin and Beza. The remark of 
Dr. Charles Hodge that in the works of Calvin there 
are passages favoring both sides of the question, 
aptly illustrates that which is true of nearly all Cal- 
vinists." 4 

Of the intimate friend of Calvin Professor S. M. 
Hopkins says, " Supralapsarian Calvinism, and an 
elaborate argument to prove that the civil magistrate is 
bound to punish heresy with death were the gift Beza 
presented to the churches of the Netherlands." 5 

The generic distinction between the supralapsarian 
and infralapsarian doctrine is, that the former asserts 
and the latter denies that the decree of reprobation is 
irrespective of man's condition. It is upon this sup- 
posed ' ' order of the decrees ' ' that the entire discus- 
sion turns. I now propose to show that one of two 
things must inevitably follow ; namely (i) The infra- 
lapsarian scheme is really no solution, and is only a 
metaphysical subterfuge to escape the ' ' horrible ' ' 
conclusion of supralapsarianism ; or (2) If it is accepted, 
it logically necessitates the fundamental position of 
Arminianism. The following points should be care 
fully considered, (a) The extreme modesty of the 
infralapsarians. They tell us of the exact order of the 

4 See Part II., Chap. IV., Sec. I. and II. 

5 " Opening of the Synod of Dort." " Princeton Review," March, 
1878, p. 323. 



350 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

divine decrees. They even number them as "first," 
''second," and "third." Job's question, "Canst 
thou by searching find out God ? Canst thou find out 
the Almighty unto perfection ? " is no longer unan- 
swerable. All honor to the infralapsarians who remind 
us of the poet's words, 

" Herein I recognize the high-learned man. 
What you have never handled — no man can." 

But pause, I am mistaken. I do them great injus- 
tice : for (b) There is no order of the decrees. To be 
sure, Dr. Hodge thinks it is convenient, very conven- 
ient to talk as though the divine purposes were suc- 
cessively formed, but he has the frankness to say that 
such is not the fact. It is simply a human, in fact, an 
infralapsarian way of speaking without any divine 
reality ; he says, ' ' The decrees of God, therefore, are 
not many, but one purpose ; " again, the decrees are 
eternal, for this " necessarily follows from the perfec- 
tion of the divine Being. He can not be supposed to 
have at one time plans or purposes which he had not 
at another." G If this be true, what is the use of talk- 
ing of the order of the decrees ? None whatever, 
except to hide the defects of the system, (e) Is it 
true that God barel3 T permits the fall of man? Well, 
let us see what Dr. Hodge will answer. In treating of 
this subject, our author is in the company of Calvin ; 
that is, his writings contain passages favoring both 
sides. On one page he will talk as though he held 
the doctrine of bare permission, while on another page 
much stronger language will be used: thus he says, 



6 " Theology." Vol. I., pp. 537. 538. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



35^ 



"Some things he purposes 
to do, others he decrees to per- 
mit to be done. " "It may be, 
and doubtless is, infinitely 
wise and just in God to permit 
the occurrence of sin, and to 
adopt a plan of which sin is a 
certain consequence or ele- 
ment.' 1 Vol. I., pp. 541-7- 



" The Scriptures teach that 
sinful acts, as well as such as 
are holy, are foreordained." 
" As the Scriptures teach that 
the providential control of God 
extends to all events, even the 
most minute, they do thereby 
teach that his decrees are 
equally comprehensive." Vol. 
P- 543- 



But, granting that Dr. Hodge is to be interpreted 
according to the term "permit," what is the result? 
If the fall of man was permitted, yet it took place 
according to his will : if it occurred according to his 
will, he certainly designed it : if he designed it, he 
certainly decreed it. This is substantially confessed 
by Dr. Hodge. "Whatever he does, he certainly 
purposed to do. Whatever he permits to occur, he 
certainly purposed to permit." Now what is the 
difference between the supralapsarian and the infra- 
lapsarian ? Simply this : one is fearless enough to 
state his doctrine just as it is ; the other hides behind 
a sophism. Does the reader imagine that my reason- 
ing on this point is fallacious ? Take the other horn 
of the dilemma. Maintain, for one moment that there 
is an essential difference between the effecting and 
permitting decrees, and you have denied their unity ; 
hence Calvinism is in ruins. The decrees are but one 
purpose ; whatever is affirmed of one, must be true of 
all, and consequently the infralapsarian terminology is 
a distinction without a difference. 

That the Arminian doctrine of foreknowledge is 
logically necessiated by the position of the infralap- 
sarians is easily demonstrated. If God decreed to 



35- CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

permit sin, he certainly foreknew it ; otherwise there 
13 no permission : sin occurred without his knowledge. 
Hence, so far forth, the decrees are subsequent to, and 
conditioned on foreknowledge, but if one or more 
decrees are conditional, others may be so, nay, must 
be go, for are not the decrees one ? Thus we reach 
the ground of the Arminian, who is doubtless thankful 
to the infralapsarians for their undesigned indorse- 
ment. 

SECTION VII. 

My Position Confirmed by Eminent Calvinists. 

In a previous section the reader has seen the tes- 
timony of the infralapsarians concerning the legiti- 
mate conclusion of supralapsarianism. He will now 
have an opportunity to hear the other side, and thus 
be able to judge for himself as to the merits of both 
schemes. Before doing so, however, it may be inter- 
esting to notice the testimony of some Calvinists who 
are not pronounced supralapsarians. We have already 
heard the testimony of Dr. Dabney. With his per- 
mission we will recall him : he thinks ' ' both parties 
are wrong in their method, and the issue is one which 
should never have been raised." There is "neither 
supra nor infralapsarian, and no room for their 
debate." 

Dr. Dick is so candid and withal so consistent that 
the reader will greatly appreciate the following. He 
is considering the charge of God being the author of 
sin : 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



353 



"I acknowledge that this 
horrible inference seems to 
be naturally deduced from 
the supralapsarian scheme." 
"There is something in this 
system repugnant to our ideas 
of the character of God, whom 
it represents rather as a des- 
pot than the Father of the 
universe." pp. 373, 369. 



"But it does not follow from 
our scheme which supposes 
sin as the groundwork of pre- 
destination." "The term pre- 
destination includes the de- 
crees of election and reproba- 
tion. Some indeed, confine it 
to election : but there seems to 
be no sufficient reason for not 
extending it to the one as well 
as the other ; as in both, the 
final condition of man is pre- 
appointed, or predestinated. 
. . . The sublapsarian scheme 
removes no difficulty, but 
merely speaks in terms less 
offensive. It is virtually the 
same thing to say that God 
decreed that Adam should fall, 
and then decreed to save some 
of his posterity and leave 
others to perish ; as to say 
that God first decreed to save 
some and condemn others and 
then in order to accomplish 
this design decreed the fall of 
Adam and the whole human 
race in him." pp. 373, 360, 361. 



Here we have not only diamond cutting diamond, 
but self arrayed against self. One is led to inquire 
if Dr. Dick is not attempting a third solution, which 
shall keep clear of both schemes ; the one which rep- 
resents God "asa despot," and that which "removes 
no difficulty but merely speaks in terms less offensive." 
But no, it can not be. It is logically impossible. All 
Calvinists are supra or infralapsarians, says Dr. Aik- 
man. Moreover, Dr. Dick uses the infralapsarian, or 



354 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

sublapsarian language, which makes sin the ground- 
work of the reprobating decree. After such a con- 
vincing argument I am prepared for anything, and 
hence the following confession from our eminently 
consistent author is in order. ' ' I confess that the 
statement may be objected to as not complete ; that 
there are still difficulties which press upon us : that 
perplexing questions may be proposed, and that the 
answers which have been returned to them by great 
divines are not so satisfactory in every instance as 
those imagine who do not think for themselves, and 
take too much upon trust." 

Calvin says, " Many professing a desire to defend 
the Deity from an invidious charge, admit the doctrine 
of election but deny that any one is reprobated. This 
they do ignorantly and childishly, since there could 
be no election, without its opposite reprobation." 
Waxing warmer and warmer, the great Reformer says 
of those who are infralapsarians, ' ' Here they recui to 
the distinction between will and permission, the ob- 
ject being to prove that the wicked perish only by the 
permission, but not by the will of God. But why do 
we say that he permits, but just because he wills ? 
Nor, indeed, is there any probability in the thing it- 
self, viz., that man brought death upon himself, 
merely by the permission, and not by the ordination 
of God ! As if God had not determined what he 
wished the condition of the chief of his creatures to 
be." Of the doctrine that says God merely permitted 
Pharaoh to be hardened, he calls it a " silly cavil " 
and maintains, "If to harden means only bare per- 
mission, the contumacy will not properly belong to 
Pharaoh. Now, could anything be more feeble 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



355 



and insipid than to interpret as if Pharaoh had only 
allowed himself to be hardened ? " 7 

The following from Dr. S. S. Smith is quite impor- 
tant as coming from an honorable president of the 
College of New Jersey. Of moral evils, he says, "To 
say that they have been merely permitted, without 
any interference, or concern of Almighty God in the 
actions of men, is only attempting, by the illusion of a 
word, to throw the difficulty out of sight, not to solve 

it The greater part of those writers who are 

friendly to the system of divine decrees, afraid, at the 
same time, of seeming to detract from the holiness of 
God, have, in order to avoid this impious consequence, 
thought it useful to conceive of the Divine purposes in 
a certain order, which has, therefore, been styled the 
order of the decrees. Every scheme, however, for ar- 
ranging them, labors under the same essential defect ; 
that of seeming to represent a succession in the Divine 
Mind similar to what must necessarily take place in 
the designs and plans of men. In the purposes of 
God there can be no succession ; " of the sublapsa- 
rianshe says, " The cautious timidity with which these 
writers approach this subject betrays their secret 
apprehension that the decrees of God, to which, on 
other occasions, they freely appeal, have, in the pro- 
duction of sin, some sinister influence on the moral 
liberty of man. If these apprehensions are well 
founded, they ought to abandon their system alto- 
gether." 8 

According to Hopkins modern Calvinists are less 



7 "Institutes." B. III., Chap. XXIII., Sec. 1-8. B. I., Chap., XVIII., 
Sec. 2. 

« " Nat. and Revealed Religion," pp. 271, 277. 



356 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

consistent than Arminians, and should give up their 
position. " It has been observed that Calvin and the 
assembly of divines at Westminster assert that the 
divine decree and agency respecting the existence of 
sin imply more than a bare permission, viz., some- 
thing positive and efficacious. They, therefore, who 
hold to only a bare permission, do depart from those 
who have been properly called Galvinists, and do not 
agree with the Confession of Faith composed by said 
assembly of divines, or with those numerous churches 
and divines who do assent or have assented, to 
that Confession of Faith, in England, Scotland and 
America." 9 

Rev. Daniel T. Fiske says, " The decrees of God 
are not merely his purposes to permit events to take 
place as they do. Some hold that, with regard to the 
existence of sin, we can only affirm that the divine 
decrees extend to it in the sense that God determines 
to permit it, that is, not to prevent it. But this lan- 
guage does not seem to express the whole truth. 
God might, indeed, be said to decree the existence 
of whatever he could have prevented, but determined 
not to prevent. But the decrees of God are not mere 
negatives. They are purposes to do something and to 
do that which renders certain the existence of all 
events, sin included." 1 » 

Bishop Burnett has so admirably stated the ques- 
tion that I am sure the reader will be pleased at its 
presentation : he is speaking of the supralapsarians. 
"Nor can they think 'with the sublapsarians, that 
reprobation is only God's passing by those whom he 



0 " Works." Vol. I., pp. 144, 145. 

1 "Bib. Sacra," Vol. XIX., p. 404. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



357 



does not elect. This is an act unworthy of God, as if 
he forgot them, which does clearly imply imperfection. 
And as for that which is said concerning their being 
fallen in Adam, they argue, that either Adam's sin 
and the connection of all mankind to him as their 
head and representative, was absolutely decreed, or it 
was not ; if it was then all is absolute. Adam's sin 
and the fall of mankind were decreed, and by conse- 
quence, all from the beginning to the end are under a 
continued chain of absolute decrees : and then the 
supralapsarian and the sublapsarian hypothesis will 
be one and the same, only variously expressed. 

" But if Adam's sin was only foreseen and permitted, 
then a conditionate decree founded upon prescience, 
is once admitted, so that all that follows turns upon 
it : and then all the arguments either against the per- 
fection of such acts, or the certainty of such prescience, 
turns against this ; for if they are admitted in any one 
instance, then they may be admitted in others as well 
as in that." The following is the Bishop's personal 
opinion : ' ' The sublapsarians do always avoid to 
answer this ; and it seems that they do rather incline 
to think that Adam was under an absolute decree ; 
and if so, then, though their doctrine may seem to 
those who do not examine things nicely, to look more 
plausible ; yet really it amounts to the same thing with 
the other." 2 

This is the legitimate conclusion. Beyond all 
question, the whole discussion is mere logomachy. It 
is a distinction without any essential difference : or if 
the difference is radical, Arminianism is the inevitable 
conclusion. It is similar to the language employed 



2 " Exposition," p. 212. 



35§ CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

to mystify the mind on the Atonement. When the 
advocates of a limited Atonement were hard pressed 
by reason and Bible, they invented the subterfuge 
"Christ died sufficiently or meritoriously for all, but 
efficaciously only for the elect. ' * So when the doctrine 
of Reprobation is closely examined and followed to its 
logical and necessary conclusion, the modern Calvin- 
ist retorts, 1 God does not decree the perdition of the 
non-elect. He has merely decreed to permit them to 
sin and perish." When asked to explain the method 
of this wonderful negative decree, our friend says, " It 
is because God views them as fallen," thus making 
the vision of God as narrow as their own ; for if God 
can view men as fallen before they are created, why 
can not he view them as repentant under the influences 
of the Spirit ? Verily, the question is asked in vain. 
The Calvinist is silent except when he breaks out with 
that wonderfully convincing argument, " who art 
thou that repliest against God ? " 

SECTION VIII. 

God Not Guiltless if He Permits When He Could Pre- 
vent Sin. 

The doctrine that God permits sin has been va- 
riously understood. As the reader has seen, all con- 
sistent Calvinists accept and affirm the bold theory 
that all sin could have been prevented had it so pleased 
God. That even now all souls might be converted, 
all sin immediately stopped, and every trace of wretch- 
edness instantly obliterated. If asked, why are these 
things permitted ? they invariably reply, God has not 
revealed all the reasons, but we are sure that it must 
be on account of his honor and glory. Moreover, they 



AND man's moral nature. 



359 



affirm that if this be denied, the omnipotence of God 
is seriously impaired, and Atheism is the logical con- 
clusion. 

The theory of L,eibnitz has been variously inter- 
preted. 3 Without doubt, his Theodicee is the ablest 
theological work which the seventeenth century pro- 
duced. If it did not satisfactorily solve the problem, 
it certainly started the mind in the right direction ; 
his theory of the ' ' privative nature of evil ' ' is now 
quite generally regarded as inadequate. Sin is more 
than a negation. Our consciousness can not thus be 
denied. From his assertions of the limitations of the 
creature, some have deduced the doctrine that evil is 
necessary. Others deny this and assert that he sim- 
ply meant " that the possibility of evil inheres in the 
very nature of things." McCosh thinks that " it can 
not be so stated as not to involve this mystery, that 
God should select a system in which evil is allowed 
that good may come." 

I am inclined to think that this is a just criticism 
upon Leibnitz, for unless he uses the word permit 
ambiguously he certainly fails to show why sin is not 
the means of good : the preface to his work contains 
the following : " We show that evil has another 
source than the will of God ; and that we have reason 
to say of moral evil, that God only permits it, and 
that he does not will it. But what is more important, 
we show that God can not only permit sin. but even 
concur therein, and contribute to it, without prejudice 
to his holiness, although absolutely speaking, he 
might have prevented it." 



3 See Cook's " Transcendentalism," p. 188. McCosh's " Divine Govern- 
ment," p. 377; note Hodge's " Theology," Vol. II., p. 134. 



360 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S LAW 



It is to be regretted that so great a thinker as 
Leibnitz did not see that if God, — " absolutely speak- 
ing " — permitted that which he might have prevented, 
he must have preferred its existence to its non-exist- 
ence, and consequently did really will its existence. 
It seems to me there are but two suppositions to be 
considered. Either God could have prevented sin, 
but did not, or he wished to, but could not. The first 
affirmation is accepted by all consistent Calvinists. 
The second is adopted and more or less clearly de- 
fended by Arminians. 

The reader has already seen some of the conse- 
quences which legitimateh' follow the Calvinistic 
doctrine that God can, but does not prevent sin. In 
the present section I am to show that if this dictum be 
true, God can not be guiltless. Sin is pronounced to 
be wrong both by God and man. So far as any wrong 
is permitted by any person having full power and 
authority to prevent, so far is that person morally 
guilty. This is true of man, and I reverently affirm 
it to be of universal application. The highest legal 
opinion of all nations asserts the principle as true in 
private and public life, in peace as well as war. The 
conscience and intellectual conviction of ever)- man 
w r ill instantly accept it. Men act upon it in every-day 
life and consequently to den}- its force in theology is 
mere assumption. 

At this point, however, it is necessary to consider 
the meaning of the term "permit." In popular lan- 
guage Arminians sometimes speak of the permission 
of sin, as though they held the Calvinistic doctrine. 
The term is unfortunate and should never be used out- 
side of the Calvinistic system. To permit a thing to 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 36 1 

occur necessarily implies power to prevent ; if the event 
can not be prevented, because of something connected 
with it, then it can not be permitted. The something 
which is beyond prevention is, or is not indissolubly 
connected with the event : if it is so connected, then 
the power to prevent must embrace, not merely the 
event by itself, but the event as associated with that 
which is not preventable : this would be equivalent 
to saying that the event is not permitted because not 
preventable. On the other hand, if the non-prevent- 
able something is not indissolubly connected with the 
event, the event, in and of itself, is preventable, and 
hence is really permitted. Moreover, to permit denotes 
something " positive, a decided assent, either directly 
or by implication." 

Consequently all questions relating to the permis- 
sion of sin arising from the creation of man are decid- 
edly out of place. Calvinists have asserted, and at 
times Arminians have rather implied the same, Why, 
surely God permitted sin because he created man ; or 
God permits sin because he could deprive the race of 
life, or in any case of individual sinning he could force 
the soul by a flash of lightning, or by some other 
means equally effective. 

These questions I repeat, have no place in this dis- 
cussion. They confound all proper distinctions and 
cover the hideous features of Calvinism. Beyond all 
doubt God is free in all his actions. He was under no 
necessity in the work of creation. He could have 
made a different world, and different beings to inhabit 
it. But preferring a race of free agents with the pos- 
sibility — and to him the actuality — of sin, rather than 
a lower order of creatures, he created man. In this 



362 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

sense, it is true, sin is permitted because man was cre- 
ated. But this is not the problem before us ; for if God 
could have prevented sin only by refraining from cre- 
ating man in his present freedom, then as I have pre- 
viously said, it is irrelevant to say that God could, but 
did not prevent sin. With that understanding of the 
subject the question would be, Why did God create 
man a free moral agent ? It is evident, therefore, that 
when the question of the prevention or the non-pre- 
vention of sin is considered, it has reference to man as 
he was created, the Calvinist asserting and the Armin- 
ian denying that God could have prevented all sin in 
the present moral system without violating the 
creature's freedom. 

Notice ( 1 ) That Calvinists concede this is the 
question at issue. The following is from the <c Au- 
burn Declaration." " God permitted the introduction 
of sin, not because he was unable to prevent it con- 
sistently with the moral freedom of his creatures, but 
for wise and benevolent reasons w 7 hich he has not re- 
vealed." 

Dr. Geo. Duffield says, "The Old School have 
charged the New with believing that God could have 
prevented the existence of sin in the world, but not 
without destroying the freedom of the human will ; 
and that sin is incidental to any moral system. To 
this the latter reply, that God permitted the entrance 
of sin, but not because he was unable to prevent it ; 
but for wise and benevolent reasons which he hath not 
revealed." (2) Calvinists ridicule the idea that God 
could have prevented sin only by creating man less 
free. President Jeremiah Day says, "Will it be said 
that God merely permitted their hearts to be hardened ; 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURK. 



363 



or permitted them to harden their own hearts ? If 
this be conceded, it must still be understood, that he 
had power to prevent this result. What sort of per- 
mission is a mere inability to prevent that which is 
permitted ? " 

Dr. Griffin thus speaks against the supposition of 
Dr. N. W. Taylor. ' ' Permit sin! And how could 
he prevent it ? In no way but by refusing to create 
moral agents. As well might you talk of my per- 
mitting the cholera, because I do not kill off every- 
body that could have it. Why dress up palpable 
Arminianism in such Calvinistic drapery ? ' ' Dr. E. A. 
Lawrence is equally explicit : he says, " God is pos- 
sessed of adequate power to have prevented sin, if he 
had chosen to do so. The idea of permission implies 
the power of prevention. It would be preposterous 
to speak of God's permitting what he was not able to 
prevent ; and we hold it to be equally peculiar to 
speak of God's permitting sin in a moral system ; if 
he had no other way of preventing it, than by pre- 
venting the moral system ; as the watchmaker can 
prevent friction in the wear of a watch, only by not 
making the watch." i 

4 Strange that President Edwards could not see this distinction. The 
following extract from his defense of Decrees and Ejection clearly shows 
how he confounded the Arminian with the Calvinistic position. " But you 
will say, God wills to permit sin, as he wills the creature should be left to 
his freedom ; arid if he should hinder it, he would offer violence to the 
nature of his own creature. I answer, this comes nevertheless to the very 
thing that I say. You say, God does not will sin absolutely ; but rather 
than alter the law of nature and the nature of free agents, he wills it. He 
wills what is contrary to excellency in some particulars, for the sake of a 
more general excellency and order. So that this scheme of the Arminians 
does not help the matter." " Works." Vol. II., p. 516. As we have seen, 
this confounds all proper distinctions. The Arminian says, God desires, 
and works for the utter extinction of sin. The Calvinist says, God desires 
and secures the actual amount of sin. Yet Edwards sees no difference. 



364 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

( 3 ) My position more or less clearly conceded and 
affirmed by Calvinists. Dr. Albert Barnes is generally 
regarded as having been a good Presbyterian Calvin- 
ist ; here are his words concerning God's disapproba- 
tion of sin. " It would not be right for him not to 
show it, for that would be the same thing as to be in- 
different to it, or to approve it ; " speaking of " the 
wrath of God" (Rom. i. 28) he says: "We admire 
the character of a ruler who is opposed to all crime in 
the community, and who expresses those feelings in 
the laws. And the more he is opposed to vice and 
crime, the more we admire his character and his laws ; 
and why shall we be not equally pleased with God 
who is opposed to all crime in all parts of the uni- 
verse." Dr. G. F. Wright has said Finney was 
"distinctively Calvinistic." Here are his words, 
" Certainly if he was able wisely to prevent sin in any 
case where it actually occurs, then not to do so nullifies 
all our conceptions of his goodness and wisdom. He 
would be the greatest sinner in the universe if, with 
power and wisdom adequate to the prevention of sin, 
he had failed to prevent it." 5 Dr. Iy. P. Hickok was 
not given to idle speculations, nor did he speak with- 
out due consideration. His testimony, therefore, is 
especially important. "Theologically, no body of 
divinity can be sound which has running through it 
the doctrine that God wishes his creatures to sin, and 

works in or upon them to induce it Somehow, 

sin has come into God's system of government against 
his authority ; and its continuance, as well as its 
origin, leaves the sin to be abominable in his sight : 
and it can not consist with this that he wishes for it 



5 " Gospel Themes," p. 218. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



365 



and works to secure it. All theorizing or teaching 
subversive of this truth, or obscuring its clearness, 
should be rejected without ceremony or apology, no 
matter how ingenious the speculation or earnest the 
teaching may be." 0 

Thus do I show the logical result of the doctrine 
that God can, but does not prevent sin. Permission 
implies not only power to prevent, but also assent. He 
who permits evil is so far a particeps criminis to the 
transaction. % 

SECTION IX. 
Some Objections Considered. 

L It may be objected that my position degrades 
God. If his omnipotence is limited, he can not be per- 
fect. This is true only of the Calvinist's conception 
of God. If he is determined to define omnipotence as 
the power of God which can do anything, he has that 
privilege : but in that case it is the God of Calvinism, 
and not of the Bible, who is degraded. True, the 
Saviour, said "With God all things are possible"; 
but the literal interpretation is confined to Calvinism 
and Universalism. Even Charnock has said "The 
object of his absolute power is all things possible : 
such things that imply not a contradiction, such that 
are not repugnant in their own nature to be done, and 
such as are not contrary to the nature and perfections 
of God to be done. ' ' 7 Accepting this definition of the 
divine omnipotence I merely disagree with the Calvin- 
ist concerning what things do imply a contradiction, 

6 " Bib. Sacra," 1873, pp. 667, 668. 

7 "Attributes of God," p. 401. 



366 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

what things are "repugnant in their own nature," 
and also what things are ' ( contrary to the nature and 
perfection of God." I respectfully submit the ques- 
tion if sin is not repugnant in its own nature, and as 
such, is it " not contrary to the nature and perfection 
of God"? Moreover, the objection is fallacious. 
Whatever limitation there is was self-imposed. God 
could have refrained from creating. He might have 
created a race with a much lower degree of freedom, 
and so far, his power would have remained unlimited. 
Hence, whatever force the objection has, directly ap- 
plies to the plan which God adopted. If the Deity 
chooses ' ' for wise and benevolent reasons ' ' to place 
himself under such limitations, I do not know as the 
Calvinist has any reason to object. In the light of 
this thought the following quotation from Professor 
Henry Cowles will prove interesting : Having consid- 
ered the limitations under which the Holy Spirit 
works, he says, " Thus it appears that we must essen- 
tially modify the very common assumption that God 
has permitted sin in his moral universe, having infinite 
power to prevent it. This assumption — ' infinite 
power to prevent' — has begotten the main difficulties 
of the sin problem. The sensitiveness of many good 
men touching this whole question hinges around this 
point. It seems to them derogatory to the infinite 
God to admit any sort of limitation to his power as 
against sin and as towards its prevention, or the recov- 
ery of sinners from its dominion. To all such sensi- 
tive thinking and feeling, let it be suggested that it 
is in no sense derogatory to God's power to say that 
he can not save sinners of our race without an atone- 
ment, can not save them without their personal faith 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 367 

in the atoning Redeemer, can not save them without 
their repentance. Such a ' can not ' should startle 
no one ; should never be thought of as involving any 
dishonorable limitations of God's power. Indeed, 
such limitations in God's plans and principles as to 
human salvation are to his infinite glory. Nor is it 
any impeachment of God's power, or of his moral 
character in any respect, that he should recognize the 
nature of intelligent, free, and morally acting minds, 

and adapt his agencies upon them accordingly 

With profoundest reverence, it behooves us to assume * 
that God's wisdom in managing this whole moral sys- 
tem is simply perfect. Never let us derogate from his 
wisdom or from his love. The Scriptures represent 
the Most High as being keenly sensitive to the least 
imputation against his justice, his wisdom or his love. 
(See Ezek. xviii. 2, 3, 23, 32 ; xxxiii. 10, 11, 17, 20). 
No similar sensitiveness appears in his word on the 
point of limitations in the line of actually saving sin- 
ners. There seems to be never a thought of its being 
derogatory to God's power to say, ' It is impossible 
to renew them again to repentance , ' or to say that 
sinners whom he labors and longs to save, yet will 
resist his Spirit and forever die." 8 

Throughout this discussion I have tried to present 
the plain teachings of the Word. Beyond all success- 
ful contradiction the Scriptures contain many declara- 
tions concerning the limitations of God's grace. Let 
the Calvinist talk as he will, God declares that his 
grace was limited by the perverseness of his ancient 
people. " And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and 
men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my 



« "Bib Sacra," 1873, PP- 742-744- 



363 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

vineyard. What could have been done more to my 
vineyard, that I have not done in it ? wherefore, when 
I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought 
it forth wild grapes ? " (Isa. v. 3, 4.) 

If the reader will compare this statement with the 
record of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, or with the 
words of the Master, ' ' Ye will not come unto me that 
ye might have life, ' 1 he will see that the Calvinist is 
over zealous. Lastly, the objection comes with poor 
grace from the Calvinist. Of all men, he should be 
the last to find fault with the Arminian doctrine of 
omnipotence. Degrade the Divine Omnipotence ? 
And pray tell me what does he do ? One would think 
that the Power of God was of more consequence than 
the Divine Veracity or Justice. When the Calvinist 
shall have vindicated his theory against the charge of 
making God the author of sin, the punisher of men 
against whom there is no breath of evil, and the pro- 
claimer of one thing and the doer of another, then he 
may say with some degree of fairness that this position 
degrades the divine omnipotence. 

II. It may be objected that inasmuch as God knew 
that sin would invade his moral government, he must 
have preferred sin to the non creation of man with his 
actual freedom. If this be true, the objector may urge, 
then on your own confession, God is the author of sin, 
for he created man with the full knowledge that sin 
would occur, which might have been prevented by the 
non-creation of the race. This is the same idea which 
I noticed at the commencement of this section. It 
changes the entire argument. Instead of solving the 
problem of the prevention or non-prevention of sin, in 
and of itself, it seeks to know why God created man 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURK. 



369 



whom he could not prevent from sinning. It is an 
entire abandonment of the Calvinistic doctrine that 
God could, but did not wish to prevent sin in the 
present moral system. With this understanding of 
the subject, I have no objection against answering the 
question. 

We do not know all the reasons why the Deity 
preferred to create a race of free creatures with the 
(pure) certainty that sin would result, rather than to 
refrain from creating, or to create a lower order of free 
creatures. That he has done so, is to me a fact beyond 
all successful questioning : hence it must have been 
for the best. But if reasons are sought, the following 
suppositions are, to me, more than probable. 

( 1 ) The moral government of God does not demand 
perfection. That of course, should be its aim, but if 
it can not be secured, it does not follow that the 
attempt should be abandoned. If, on the whole, more 
good can be secured by such a government than by no 
government, even human reason justifies the attempt. 
This is the case with the present moral system. The 
Divine Mind sees the end from the beginning. He 
knows that notwithstanding the sin whicn can not be 
prevented, the ultimate amount of good will far exceed 
the ultimate amount of evil, and hence it is better to 
have created, than to have refrained from creating. 

(2) In the light of this remark it is easy to see the 
probable reason why God created the race with so 
large a degree of freedom. A low degree of creatural 
freedom necessarily means a low degree of creatural 
righteousness. Rightness or holiness can not be cre- 
ated. It is a matter of choice. He who has been 
created perfectly symmetrical, every faculty in proper 



370 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

relation, or adjustment with every other faculty, every 
passion, every inclination directed toward that which 
is true, beautiful and good, is not righteous in the 
proper acceptation of the term. That which he is 
reflects the goodness and wisdom of his Maker : he 
may be admired for what he is, but he can not be virt- 
uous until he deliberately chooses his Creator's will 
as his own : consequently if the creature has little 
responsibitity he can not acquire much virtue. The 
larger the freedom, therefore, the greater are the heights 
of nobility to which the soul may aspire : hence the 
Divine L,ove is more highly honored by the worship of 
creatures of exalted intelligence than by those whose 
freedom is only a little above the brute creation. The 
following from Dr. Dorner is admirable: "We must 
judge, therefore, that the divine omnipotence by the 
mightiness of its working brings into existence free 
beings capable of resisting its will ; because, unless 
the3^ are able freely to resist, they will not be able 
freely to surrender themselves, and unless they freely 
surrender themselves, they can not be regarded by God 
as a new and valuable good. If we acknowledge this 
to be the nature of the freedom conferred on man, and 
assume that God designs to establish a free, ethical 
cosmos, a cosmos of love, a divine family ; we must 
also concede the necessity of his entering into a rela- 
tion of reciprocity toman, for love without reciprocity 
does not deserve the name." 

Again, he says, " By creating man a free, that he 
might be a moral, being, God has brought into exist- 
ence a being, in a certain sense of like nature with 
himself, which as such is capable of resisting him. 
Such resistance can never be overcome by mere force. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



371 



Indeed, God would contradict himself were he to 
attempt a compulsory vanquishment of human oppo- 
sition. Having made man free, he must suffer him to 
use his freedom, even when the use is abuse. He 
may annihilate him ; but he can not will his existence 
as free whilst annihilating his freedom. This is the 
secret of our immense responsibility for the use of free- 
dom. Here is the root of the sense of guilt." 9 Dr. 
Samuel D. Cochran says, " God's design in constitut- 
ing them was not that they should sin, and suffer 
either the natural or the retributory consequence of so 
doing, but that they should obey his law and experi- 
ence the blessed consequences, both natural and remun- 
eratory, of so doing." 1 

In this connection it is proper to notice the state- 
ment of Dr. McCabe that " No consideration whatever 
could justify infinite goodness in creating a soul that 
God foreknew would be wretched and suffer forever. ' ' 
Unless Dr. McCabe adopts the doctrine of Creationism 
he needs to be reminded that souls are created through 
the complex workings of natural laws. If God 
should adopt and consistently follow Dr. McCabe' s 
postulate, human freedom would be seriously impaired. 
If, as he grants, God ' ' could not consistently have 
created a race of free moral beings such as man" 
without providing a Saviour, sin as a contingent fact 
must have been foreseen. Such a divine foresight 
justifies us in believing that God has not fundament- 
ally erred in his estimate of the abuse of freedom 
which leads to eternal ruin. III. It is more than 
merely supposable that the present moral system is the 

9 "Bib. Sac," 1879, pp. 54, 55. 

1 " The Moral System and the Atonement." 



372 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

first of a series. If this be so, it is reasonable to infer 
that the history of our race, its fall, the Incarnation 
and Atonement, will be used as great moral motives to 
maintain the purity of future systems. 2 Viewed in 
this light the difficulties pertaining to the subject are 
considerably decreased. The attempt of God which 
now looks like a failure may terminate in triumph. If 
the Calvinist seeks to vindicate his position by indefi- 
nitely postponing the solution, he certainly can not 
complain if his opponent adopts the same method. 
The radical difference between the two solutions is at 
once apparent. Nor is this position at all novel. Dr. 
Bellamy asks, ' ' How know we if God thinks it best 
to have a larger number of intelligences to behold his 
glory and to be happy with him, but that he judges 
it best not to bring them into existence till the present 
grand drama shall be finished at the day of judgment ? 
That they may, without sharing the hazard of the 
present confused state of things, reap the benefit of 
the whole through eternal ages ; whilst angels and 
saints may be appointed their instructors to lead into 
the knowledge of God's ways to his creatures, and of 
all their ways to him from the time of Satan's revolt 
in heaven to the final consummation of all things. 
And as the Jewish dispensation was introductory and 
preparatory to the Christian, so this present universe 
may be introductory and preparatory to one after the 
day of judgment, almost infinitely larger." 3 

2 For an interesting discussion of the question of a plurality of in- 
habited worlds, see Townsend's " The Arena and The Throne." Also Bib. 
Sac., 1873, p. 758. 

3 As quoted in " Law and Penalty Endless." See also Beecher's " Con- 
flict of Ages." 



CHAPTER II. 



Calvinism Contradicts Conscience. 



" Foreordi nation of some men to everlasting life, 
and of others to everlasting death, and pretention of 
all the non-elect (including the whole heathen world), 
are equally inconsistent with a proper conception of 
divine justice, and pervert it into an arbitrary par- 
tiality for a small circle of the elect, and an arbitrary 
neglect of the great mass of men." — Rev. Philip 
Schaff, D. D. 



373 



CHAPTER II. 



Calvinism Contradicts Conscience. 

Sin exists. This is as God desires, for, being om- 
nipotent, he doeth all things according to his will. 
Such is the logic of Calvinism. Its language is equally- 
explicit. Sin seems to be one of the corner-stones of 
the system. If this assertion is considered too strong 
by the average reader, he will please recall a few of 
the many Calvinistic gems which have been polished 
by the master workmen. 

Bates says, sin was permitted by God "as a fit 
occasion for the more glorious discovery of his attri- 
butes." The learned Charnock affirms that "God 
willed sin, that is, he willed to permit it, that he 
might communicate himself to the creature in the 
most excellent manner." Toplady says God per- 
mitted the fall of " our first parents having 

purposed to order it to his own glory." Hopkins de- 
clares that ' ' sin and misery are necessary in 

the best system to accomplish the greatest good, the 
most important and best ends." Dr. Alexander says 
sin was permitted in crder " that God might have an 
opportunity of manifesting his own glory to all intelli- 
gent creatures more conspicuously." Edwards has 
the following, " We little consider how much the sense 
of good is heightened by the sense of evil, both moral 
and natural. As it is necessary that there should be 

374 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. .375 

evil, because the display of the glory of God could not 
but be imperfect and incomplete without it, so evil is 
necessary in order to the highest happiness of the 
creature, and the completeness of that communication 
of God, for which he made the world." 1 

Dr. Hodge declares that sin is permitted because 
' ' higher ends will be accomplished by its admission 
than by its exclusion." 2 

It is not necessary to adduce further proof. It is 
incontestably certain that Calvinists have always made 
much of sin : have always regarded it as the means by 
which God reveals his glory to the world. Is that 
glory worthy of the adoration of the universe ? In 
that same proportion is the importance of sin : for as 
Toplady says, " Without creation no creatures, with- 
out creatures, no sin." 

I shall now attempt to show that these affirma- 
tions are unequivocally condemned by the funda- 
mental utterances of conscience. 

SECTION 1. 

Calvinism De?iies the Truthfulness of Remorse. 

Wishing to confront Calvinism with the real utter- 
ances of man's moral nature I shall submit the follow- 
ing incident — similar ones are constantly occurring — 
which took place at the Illinois State Prison, Joliet, 
August 7, 1883. A convict named George Kellogg 
' ' was employed on the Ashley & Company wire con- 



1 "Works," Vol. II., p. 517. 

2 '• Theology," Vol. I., p. 547. 



376 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

tract, and ran one of the machines for drawing wire 
into smaller sizes. The machine revolves at a high 
rate of speed, and draws the wire with great force. 
Kellogg picked up one of the loops from the coil of 
wire that he was feeding and tossing it over his neck 
was drawn down to the block instantly with terrible 
force. The convict who was at the machine next to 
him, and to whom he had said good-by, stopped the 
machine as quickly as possible, but the wire was im- 
bedded far into the flesh around the suicide's neck 
and had to be filed off. .... Just before commit- 
ting the act, he went to his keeper and told him that he 
wanted to see the warden, and being told that he was 
absent, replied, ' Well, I wanted to make a confession 
to him. I am the man that committed the double 
murder at Atlanta, 111.,' and turning, he walked back 
to his machine and threw the fatal coil about his neck. 
.... In his cell he left an ante-mortem statement 
addressed to Chaplain Rutledge, saying, 'I have been 
treated well in the prison. I have no malice toward 
any one. I am innocent of the robbery that I am sent 
here for, but it is something else that worries me. I 
was raised a Methodist, but what am I now ? I am 
nothing. My God, forgive me, and be merciful to me. 
It is more than I have been to myself.' " 

Doubtless, this man's sin constantly troubled him : 
he became less composed and easily frightened. More 
than ever he saw the enormity of the sin, and hence 
the sense of his guilt was constantly increasing. Ah ! 
wretched man ; " thou art in the gall of bitterness and 
in the bond of iniquity." Remorse is at work. Thou 
art now before the judgment seat of the Almighty 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



377 



forever condemned for doing that which is an eternal 
wrong. 3 

But what is remorse, and what does it say ? Re- 
morse is the lash of conscience. It is the sting of con- 
scious guilt. It is self-loathing. It makes what Byron 
calls ' ' a hell in man. ' ' Its language is too plain 
to be misunderstood. It says to the soul, "Thou art 
guilty." The man may deny it before his fellows, 
but to himself, he says, "True, true, for I did it." 
While remorse can never touch the innocent, it is a 
constant companion of the guilty. This has been 
vividly portrayed by Shakespeare in Richard III. : 

" O coward conscience, how dost thou afflict me ! 
The lights burn blue. — It is now dead midnight. 
Cold, fearful drops stand on my trembling flesh. 
What do I fear ? Myself? There's none else by ! 
Richard loves Richard ; that is, I am I. 
Then fly. What, from myself? Great reason ; why ? 
Lest I revenge. What! myself upon myself? 
I love myself. Wherefore ? for any good 
That I myself have done unto myself ? 
O, no : alas ! I rather hate myself 
For hateful deeds committed by myself." 

But remorse is not simply the pronouncement of 
guilt. By no means. Guilt necessarily presupposes 
that the deed done, against which the conscience pro- 
nounces its judgment, was intrinsically sinful. Hence 
remorse says, This evil deed ought not to have been 
committed. On this point there can not be a shadow 

3 "The secret which the murderer possesses soon comes to possess 
him ; and, like the evil spirit of which we read, it overcomes him, and leads 
him whithersoever it will. He feels it beating at his heart, rising to his 
throat, and demanding disclosure. He thinks the whole world sees it in 
his face, reads it in his eyes, and almost hears its workings in the very 
silence of his thoughts. It has become his master. It betrays his discre- 
tion, it breaks down his courage, it conquers his prudence."— Webster. 



378 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

of doubt. Remorse is meaningless, nay, it is a psy- 
chological delusion, if it does not signify that the 
deed for which the soul is tortured, should never have 
been committed. Rev. Joseph Cook in speaking of 
the bliss or the pain which inevitably results from 
doing right or wrong, and which is ' ' capable of being 
at its height, the acutest known to the soul," says that 
the former arises ' ' when what ought to be has been 
done, and the latter when what ought not." i 

But this brings us face to face with Calvinism. Of 
a given sin, the soul under the remorse of conscience 
says, I ought not to have done it. Calvinism answers, 
Nay, you ought. That which you have done, was 
decreed, was permitted by God for his glory. He 
permits nothing without design. Sin is the necessary 
means of displaying the Divine glory : hence your 
sin was included, and is as God desired, for having 
all power he will certainly secure his desires. 

Now if the reader is disposed to be indignant, I 
respectfully request him to direct his indignation 
. against, not the writer, but the system under exami- 
nation. In previous pages I have carefully quoted 
the exact language of eminent Calvinists. I have not 
interpreted them according to my ideas, but have 
allowed them to speak for themselves. I kindly insist 
that the reader shall do the same. No excuse of the 
reader, no evasion of the Calvinist will be permitted. 
The issue has been clearly and fairly made, and the 
verdict must be according to the principles of fairness. 
Unless Calvinists write according to the teachings of 
Machiavel, they must mean what they say. Such 
being the actual fact, they must here suffer a crushing 

4 Lect. " Unexplored Remainders in Conscience." 



AND MAN'S MORAL, NATURE. 



379 



defeac. Can there be a palliative excuse ? None 
whatever. The decrees relate to all events : these 
decrees are one purpose : all things are thus decreed, 
and take place as God wills. This is the logic of Cal- 
vinism. Now for a few more quotations. Dr. Tim- 
othy Dwight says, "All things, both beings and 
events, exist in exact accordance with the purposes, 
pleasure, or what is commonly called, The Decrees of 
God. ' ' Hopkins says, ' ' There can nothing take place 
under the care and government of an infinitely power- 
ful, wise and good Being that is not on the whole 
wisest and best." Dr. Charles Hodge says, "If, 
therefore, sin occurs, it was God's design that it 
should occur." The following was taught the author 
in a certain orthodox Congregational Theological Sem- 
inary. For clearness and consistency these points 
equal those of Calvin. They are entitled " God's 
connection with Sin. (i) He forbids it. (2) He 
hates it. (3) Punishes those guilty of it. (4) Ear- 
nestly desires that men shall not be guilty of it. (5) 
He decrees sin. (6) He so constitutes and circum- 
stances men that they certainly will sin. (7) He 
makes sin the means by which he exhibits his own 
perfections in their most glorious display. (8) God 
displays His glory through the pardon of sin and the 
salvation of the sinner. (9) For aught we know this 
moral system in which we live answers the end of 
manifesting God's declarative glory through the free 
agency of his creatures, as completely as any system 
that could be devised." 

Certainly, these, together with the previous quota- 
tions, are sufficient to convince even the most incredu- 
lous that as a theological system Calvinism demands 



3 8o 



CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



the existence of sin. Remorse, on the contrary, af- 
firms that sin ought not to be. 5 

SECTION II. 

Calvinism Contradicts the Ought of Conscience. 

Remorse is the last stage in the analysis of con- 
science. I examined it first because of its clear and 
unimpeachable testimony. It speaks in no uncertain 
sound, and its language is the same the world over. 
" No king can look it out of countenance, or warrior 
conquer it. How accurately and impartially it judges ! 
It masters completely the man of guilt, holding him 
down, grinding him down, overawing and overwhelm- 
ing him." 6 

Had I merely said that conscience condemns Cal- 
vinism, the friends of the system might have replied, 
That is a matter of individual experience. It is the 
fault of your conscience, not of the system. This 
however can not be maintained. Remorse is of uni- 
versal application. That which it always condemns 
is fundamentally wrong. It unequivocally and for- 
ever affirms that sin ought not to be. We will now 
turn our attention to the second step in this moral 
analysis. 

Calvinism affirms that the glory of God demands 
the existence of sin. Says Hodge, "Sin, therefore, 
according to the Scriptures, is permitted, that the jus- 
tice of God ma}' be known in its punishment and his 

5 " Is sin permitted as a dragooning- process, to eventuate in good at 
last? No: for then sin ought to be ; and conscience affirms that it ought 
not to be. Is sin the necessar}' means of the greatest good ? No : for the 
same reason." Cook's " Transcendentalism." p. 1S4. 

6 Townsend's " Credo." 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 381 

grace in its forgiveness. And the universe, without 
the knowledge of these attributes, would be like the 
earth without the light of the sun." 7 

Dr. Griffin says, ' ' Had there been no sin the uni- 
verse would have lost all the glorious results of re- 
demption, which, as we have seen, was the great end 
for which God built the universe ; ' ' again he says, 
"Without sin and the work of redemption, all the 
displays of God which belong to the present universe 
would have been lost." 8 

But what says conscience ? This is the crucial 
question, and I, for one, am perfectly willing to abide 
by its decision. Beyond all controversy, conscience 
has to do with the rightness or wrongness of motives. 
Of the acts of two persons conscience affirms that 
those of the first were right, and those of the second 
wrong, because the motives or intentions were right or 
wrong. Again, it is equally clear that of these given 
motives, conscience affirms that the first class ought 
to have been executed, while of the second class it no 
less emphatically declares the contrary. 

The ought of conscience is imperative. It com- 
mands every person to do the right. Of a certain act 
it says with no faltering tone, This is your duty : you 
must do it. As Kant has eloquently said, "Duty! 
thou great, sublime name ! thou dost not insinuate 
thyself by offering the pleasing and the popular, but 
thou requirest obedience." The ought of conscience 
outweighs all other considerations. If men would 
only allow its mandates an impartial hearing, and then 
act accordingly the desert would indeed blossom as 

7 " Theology," Vol. I., p. 435. 

8 "Divine Efficiency," p. 195. 



382 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

the rose. The dreams of the ages would be more 
than realized under the universal reign of the Prince 
of Peace. 

The ought of conscience imperatively demands the 
performance of the right : hence the universal obliga- 
tion to do right : consequently, if all men were to meet 
this obligation, if all men were to fulfill this righteous 
requirement, there could be no sin. But the non-ex- 
istence of sin necessarily means the abridgment of 
the Divine glory according to the Calvinistic idea of 
glory. Therefore, conscience is directly at war with 
its Maker. Calvinism affirms that God's glory and 
honor are greatly enhanced by the existence of sin. 
Conscience, on the contrary, would rob God of this 
glory and honor by imperatively commanding all men 
to do that which would make sin an impossibility. 
What is the matter ? Are we to understand that God 
says one thing 011 the fleshly tables of the heart, which 
he fundamentally contradicts in his written revelation ? 
Are we to believe that God cares more for display than 
or a me ek and holy heart, a pure and a contrite spirit ? 
L,et Calvinists say this if they so think, but I am of 
the opinion that all such reasoning which necessitates 
these questions dishonors him, "the high and lofty 
One who inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy," 
and who has said " I dwell in the high and holy place, 
with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, 
to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the 
heart of the contrite ones. " No: the trouble is not 
with the Bible, nor with man's moral nature, for when 
rightly interpreted they substantially agree. The dif- 
ficulty is with the system of theology which we are 
examining. Calvinists have sought to vindicate the 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



383 



ways of God. Forgetting that the Divine Being is 
infinite in wisdom, and therefore will provide legiti- 
mate ways of manifesting his glory, they have postu- 
lated the absurd doctrine that he permitted, decreed, 
and therefore really desired the existence of sin, to its 
non-existence. Against this, I cheerfully put the 
ought of conscience, firmly believing that it will out- 
weigh by ten thousand times all of the Calvinistic 
literature of the ages. 

At this point it may be profitable to consider a few 
of the passages of Scripture which it is claimed, teach 
the general doctrine that God does permit, and there- 
fore decree the existence of sin for the manifestation 
of his glory. The following texts are adduced to 
support the theory, viz.: Gen. xlv. 7, 8 ; Prov. xvi. 4 , 
Isa. x. 5-19 ; Iytike xxii. 22 ;, John x. 18 ; Acts ii. 23, 
iv. 27, 28 ; Col. i. 16, with John i. 3. 9 

The principle involved in most of these passages 
has been fully discussed in previous pages. As a wise 
Sovereign, God sees the end from the beginning. 
This is so, not only because he knows his own plans, 
but also because he foresees the free actions of men. 
He therefore restrains the wickedness of men so far as 
it is possible, and guides, or overrules the rest unto 
the furtherance of his holy purposes. This is the 
Arminian's position, and consequently he is a firm 
believer in Divine Sovereignty, provided the doctrine 
is properly understood and carefully guarded against 
Calvinistic encroachments. 1 

There are three passages in the above list which 
seem to demand an additional examination, viz., 

9 Taken from Griffin's " Divine Efficiency," p. 195. 
t See Chap. V. Part II. 



384 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

Prov. xvi. 4; Col. i. 16 and John i. 3. John and 
Paul agree in asserting that all things were made by 
the eternal Word, while the latter asserts that all 
things were created for him. But what have these 
passages to do with the subject under discussion? 
Nothing whatever. The thought of sin, or of wicked 
creatures as such, did not enter into the scope of the 
apostles, and consequently the interpreter must not 
put it there. This is evident at a glance, for, reverse 
the process ; take the words ' ' all things ' ' in the 
widest meaning, in the most literal sense, and you 
can not escape the conclusion that the L,ogos is the 
author of sin. That Dr. Griffin should have appealed 
to these texts for support clearly illustrates the way 
in which not a few of our eminent fathers interpreted 
the Bible. The other passage (Prov. xvi. 4) reads, 
"The Lord hath made all things for himself; yea, 
even the wicked for the day of evil." Shall this be 
literally interpreted ? Manifestly not ; the conclusion 
is too dreadful even for the infralapsarian Calvinists. 
If God hath made the wicked for the day of evil in 
the sense now understood, then the supralapsarians 
are right, and therefore men are condemned as inno- 
cent. But says Dr. A A. Hodge, "This appears to 
be inconsistent with the divine righteousness, as well 
as with the teaching of Scripture." Very well, then, 
let us agree that the words were not intended to teach 
that which would necessarily follow if they were in- 
terpreted according to our Occidental ideas. What 
then do they teach ? As this is one of the proof- texts 
of the Calvinists, I propose to step aside and allow 
those to speak whose testimony is especially impor- 
tant. The following is from Professor Cowles, who 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



385 



says, "It is doubly important to understand this 
proverb. (1) Because it does teach a great truth ; (2) 
Because it does not teach a certain great error which 
has been sometimes imputed to it. The word ' made ' 
can not be restricted to creative work, but legitimately 
includes all the doings of God — works of providence 
more specifically than works of creation. The Lord 
works all things in the sense of shaping events and 
determining issues with special reference to retribution 
for moral good or evil done by his moral subjects. 
The original word rendered 'for himself admits of 
another construction with this sense : The I,ord works 
everything for its own purpose, i. e., he makes results 
and issues correspond to the human agencies involved 
in them. He makes the final result of every earthly 

life correspond to what that life has been The 

sense of the proverb therefore is that simply in accord- 
ance with the great eternal laV of fitness. God brings 
upon the wicked the destiny of suffering. There is a 
just and righteous correspondence between the moral 
activities of his creatures and the reward which a 

just God will bestow therefor Unfortunately 

this proverb has sometimes been tortured to say that 
God has created the wicked for the sake of punishing 
them, i. e., in order to secure the good results of it in 
his moral universe. This doctrine has been made 
specially objectionable by associating it with a practi- 
cal denial of free moral agency, by assuming that, to 
accomplish his ends in creating sinners for perdition, 
God holds them to a life of sinning by a law of neces- 
sity which they can not break. 

" Nothing can be wider from the truth than this, or 
more repugnant to every sentiment of benevolence or 



386 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

even of justice We need to distinguish broadly 

between God's supposed creating of sinners in order 
that they may sin, that so he may damn them for the 
good to come from it : and on the other hand, his 
actually creating them that they might be obedient 
and so be blest, and then punishing them only be- 
cause they will not obey him, but will perversely scorn 
their Maker, disown his authority, abuse his love, and 
set at naught all his efforts to reclaim and save them. 
Our proverb affirms that in this sense God shapes the 
destiny of the wicked to their just doom of suffering. 
When they absolutely will consecrate themselves to 
sinning and to rebellion, the only use God can make 
of them is to give them their just doom of woe, and 
make them an example to his moral universe." 

In Range's Commentary the passage is translated 
as follows : 

''Jehovah hath made* every thing for its end, even 
the wicked for the day of evil." 

This is much clearer than the common rendering, 
and substantially agrees with Cowles. From the Kx- 
egetical Notes I quote the following. ' ' Vs. 4-9, God's 
wise and righteous administration in respect to the 

rewarding of good and the punishment of evil 

Even the wicked for the day of evil, i. c, to experience 
the day of evil, and then to receive his well-merited 
punishment. It is not specifically the day of final judg- 
ment that is directly intended (as though the doctrine 
here were that of a predestination of the ungodly to 
eternal damnation, as many of the older Reformed 
interpreters held), but any day of calamity whatso- 
ever, which God has fixed for the ungodly, whether 
it may overtake him in this or in the future life." 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 387 

Dr. Chas. A. Aiken, the American Editor says, 
11 An absolute divine purpose and control in the crea- 
tion and administration of the world is clearly an- 
nounced, and also the strength of the bond that joins 
~in and misery." 

Doubtless the reader perceives that the claim of the 
Calvinist is not sustained by any of these supposed 
proof-texts, and therefore there is no ground for the 
supposition that the ought of conscience is contradicted 
by the Scriptures. On the contrary they substantially 
agree in affirming that sin ought not to be, and conse- 
quently it can not be true that God desires it for the 
manifestation of his glory. 

SECTION in. 

In Denying the Ought of Coiiscience, Calvinism Contra- 
dicts the Divine Law. 

This section involves a discussion of the important 
question, What is the source, or, What is the authority 
of conscience ? It is quite universally admitted that 
conscience is that power of the mind which recognizes 
moral judgments. As the will is the soul choosing, 
so conscience is the soul affirming the rightness or 
wrongness in motives. 

It is also generally conceded that conscience is 
susceptible of development. To a certain extent the 
affirmations of conscience depend upon the individual's 
temperament, moral susceptibility, early education and 
present environments ; hence, the different judgments 
concerning the same act which are often expressed by 
those of the same community. As a rule, however, it 
may be said that these diversities belong to the less 
important duties, although at times they may relate to 



388 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

the fundamental obligations. Says Haven, " As to 
the great essential principles of morals, men, after all, 
do judge much alike in different ages and different 
countries. In details they differ ; in general principles 
they agree. ' ' 2 

Again : Conscience is not an infallible guide. It is 
not above error, and consequently it is possible for 
men to do wrong conscientiously. In such circum- 
stances, however, they are not guiltless, for the simple 
reason they ought to have known better. That is, 
while they are right in following their conscience — for 
to disobey is sin — yet they are wrong in not having a 
more enlightened conscience. On the other hand, it 
may, perhaps, be granted that conscience is infallible 
according to its opportunities. That it impartially 
judges according to the data furnished : that according 
to its light, its decision is true. 3 

These modifying thoughts clearly understood, we 
are prepared to answer the question, What is the 
authority of conscience ? Beyond all legitimate doubt 
conscience is the law of God by which he seeks to 
govern his moral creatures. The mandate of con- 
science is, therefore, the authority of the Creator. 
What conscience says is what God affirms. On no 
other supposition can the majesty of conscience be 
explained. We instinctively feel that the voice within 
us agrees with our Father's voice ; that the ought 
which outweights all human considerations must have 
the hearty sanction of him who is "of purer eyes than 
to behold evil." 



2 " Studies in Philosophy and Theology," p. 165. 

3 Probably in this sense we are to understand the words of Kant— "An 
erring- conscience is a chimera." 



AND MAN'S MORAI, NATURK. 



389 



This is so evident that it is almost, if not quite uni- 
versally conceded. A few quotations from eminent 
scholars will suffice to show the reader that 1 have not 
spoken at random. McCosh says, "The conscience 
declares that there is an indelible distinction between 
good and evil, and conducts by an easy process to the 
conviction, that God approves the good and hates the 
evil. The moral power points to a law, holy, just and 
good, a law which all men have broken, and which no 
nation shut out from supernatural light, and no pagan 
philosophy, have ever exhibited in its purity." 4 

Christlieb says, "Now conscience is confessedly 
that consciousness which testifies to the law of God 
implanted in us ; that moral faculty whereby man dis- 
cerns with inward certainty what is right and what 
is wrong in the sight of God (Rom i. 32), and is con- 
scious that the eye of God is turned upon him." 5 

The following is from Delitzsch : "Conscience, 
therefore, is not an echo or abode of an immediate 
divine self-attestation, but an active consciousness of a 
divine law established in man's heart ; for all self-con- 
sciousness of created natures capable of self-conscious- 
ness is naturally at once a consciousness of their 
dependence on God, and a consciousness of their duty 
to allow themselves to be determined by the will of 
God, and consciousness of the general purport of that 
will." 0 

Wuttke says, " As the conscience is a revelation of 
the moral law as the divine will, hence it never exists 
without a God-consciousness, — it is itself, in fact, 



4 " The Intuitions of the Mind, ' pp. 419, 420. 

5 " Modern Doubt and Christian Belief," p 83. 
s " Biblical Psychology," p. 165. 



390 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

one of the phases of this consciousness, and is, per se, 
of a religious character, and is inexplicable from the 
mere world-consciousness." 7 

President Killen, of Belfast, says, " The feeling of 
accountability — to be found in every human being — 
implies the oversight of a God to whom we are re- 
sponsible. When conscience tells us that there are 
certain things which we ought to do, and that there 
are certain other things which we ought not to do, it 
plainly suggests that there is a divine law to which 
we should conform, and that we are under the rule of 
a holy Being who rewards obedience and punishes 
transgression." 8 

The following is from the same Review and by Dr. 
layman H. Atwater : "Rightly understood, laws in- 
scribed on external nature, written on the heart of 
man, and revealed in the Word of God, must harmon 
ize. They are all from the same infallible author. 
However they may differ, so far as they relate to diverse 
objects, they are at one, and utter one voice when they 
relate to the same things. Any seeming contrariety 
must arise from misconceptions of, or false inferences 
from one or more of them. There can, therefore, be 
no real antagonism between the normal conscience or 
law graven on the heart and that written in the Re- 
vealed Word, however greatly the latter may out- 
reach and surpass the former." In speaking of the 
scope of the judicium contradictionis , Dr. Atwater 
says, " Nothing is tc be accepted as the Word of God 
which contradicts any other unquestionable truth of 
sense, reason, or conscience So what clearly 



t ' Christian Ethics." Vol. II., p. 100. 
s " Princeton Review," Jan., 1879, p. 3. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



391 



contradicts our indubitable moral intuitions, as that we 
should do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with 
our God, can not be recognized as from him." 9 

Prebendary C. A. Row, of London, has admirably 
said, "The Being who has formed man's moral nature 
must possess in himself all the elements of that nature ; 
otherwise the principle of self-determination must have 
originated in something destitute of it, freedom in 
necessity, personality in impersonality, and the power 
of moral choice in necessary sequence. Hence, God 
must be a Being who is capable of self-determination, 
must be a Person : in a word, must possess all those 
attributes which distinguish a moral from a necessary 
agent. Consequently, in all these respects our moral 
nature is a revelation of God." 1 

Doubtless these extracts are sufficient to show the 
trend of modern Christian thought on this subject. 
Consequently the affirmations of Calvanism concerning 
the existence of sin are emphatically contradicted by 
the postulates of man's moral nature. Of any given 
sin, remorse says, this ought not to have been com- 
mitted. The ought of conscience imperatively de- 
mands the performance of the right, and thus cuts off 
the possibility of sin. The moral nature is the voice 
of God, and hence he can not desire the existence of 
sin to its non-existence for the sake of manifesting 
his glory. 2 

9 Art. " Supremacy of Conscience and of Revelation," pp. 671, 685. 

1 " Princeton Review." May, 1878, p. 721. 

2 "If there be any philosophy, so called, whether physical or meta- 
physical, which clashes with what men in their hearts and consciences 
know to be true— with what the soul testifies to be the truth— so much the 
worse for such a philosophy." — Dr. George P. Fisher. 



CHAPTER III. 
Calvinism an Ally of Universallsm. 

' 1 Some men would make sin a very light thing, 
and so count all teaching of everlasting punishment a 
monstrous error, wholly incongruous with our ideas of 
a just God. Others would make God the author of 
everything, sin included, and therefore responsible 
for all sin's enormity, and hence the everlasting pun- 
ishment of man an outrage cn justice. God's re- 
vealed word strikes away the foundations of both these 
philosophic theories. It declares sin to be rebellion 

against the Holy Ruler of the Universe It 

further teaches that God in no sense whatever is the 
author of sin, that he never decreed it or encouraged 

it or connived at it This world of mankind is 

not a machine made to go as it does by God's decrees. 
It is a world of independent wills, made independent 

in the likeness of God at the creation To say 

that all this was pre-arranged and effected by God 
himself is to say that his word is all a sham, and that 
his expostulations with the wicked ^re all gross hypoc- 
risy. God declares that he wishes all men to come to 
repentance. What does this mean, if it does not 
mean that God both has no hand whatever in their 
sin, and also has offered his grace to all as far as he 
consistently could? " — Rev. Howard Crosby , D. D. 



392 



CHAPTER III. 



Calvinism an Ally of Universalism. 

In making this affirmation I do not mean that Cal- 
vinism and Universalism have been, or now are bosom 
friends. By no means. The advocates of these re- 
spective systems of theology have not dwelt together 
in unity, nor have they loved one another as did 
David and Jonathan. In not a few instances the 
affirmations of Calvinism have constituted the nega- 
tions of Universalism. The literature of the last 
hundred years is permeated with the protracted and 
intensely bitter controversies of these rival systems. 

My meaning is this. In constructing a theodicy, 
Universalism has adopted some of the fundamental 
postulates of Calvinism. To a certain extent the 
premises of both theologies are the same, while they 
fundamentally disagree in their conclusions. Univer- 
salism has flourished, partly because of the utterances 
of Calvinism. If the Calvinistic doctrine of omnipo- 
tence be true, Universalism is the legitimate conclu- 
sion. 

But it is my profound conviction that both systems 
are wrong : that the truth is to be found not by deny- 
ing the sincere and atoning love of God for all his 
children, as does Calvinism ; nor by limiting the di- 
vine penalties and psychological tendencies of sin, a? 
does Universalism ; but by combining these moment- 

393 



394 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S LAW 



ous truths maintain, as does the Bible, that the lost 
are those who will not be saved. 1 

SECTION I. 

Calvinism a?id Universalism agree co?icerning God's 
Power, m 

At this stage of the discussion it is not necessary 
to repeat the assertions of Calvinism relating to the 
Divine Omnipotence. The reader is now in possession 
of such facts as will enable him to form an inde- 
pendent judgment concerning the teachings of Calvin- 
ism. If, however, he should fail in any given case to 
see the close similarity between Universalism and the 
Theology of the Reformation, a brief reference to pre- 
vious pages will doubtless be sufficient. 

(i) " God, almighty in his power over mind as 
well as matter." This is the language of Rev. 
Thomas Baldwin Thayer, whose work on the 1 1 The- 
ology of Universalism ' ' is generally regarded as 
among the best which the denomination has produced. 
Concerning this subject the author says, " It is impor- 
tant to observe the language of this statement — that 
God is omnipotent, not only in the natural world, but 
also in the moral and spiritual world. It is as easy for 
him to create and govern a soul, as to create and gov- 
ern a sun or a planet. And it requires no more effort 
on his part to discipline and save a moral being, ac- 

i In this connection I would say to the Universalist reader that in 
writing- the above I am not unmindful of the latest and ablest biblical and 
psychological arguments by which his doctrine is supported. As my pur- 
pose is to demonstrate the fallacies of Calvinism, I can not fully discuss the 
merits of Universalism. That has been done by several recent works ; 
e.g., Haley's "The Hereafter of Sin," and Wright's "The Relation of 
Death to Probation . " 



AND MAN'S MORAI, NATURE. 



395 



cording to the laws of his moral nature, than it requires 
to control the solar systems, according to the material 
laws impressed upon them at the time of their crea- 
tion." 2 

Dr. I. D. Williamson says, " As to the attributes of 
God, there is a like unity of opinion. All agree that 
God is a being of infinite power, wisdom and good- 
ness. No error can enter into his arrangements, no 
lack of goodness can mar his purposes, no failure can 
defeat him. Take these simple ideas of God, about 
which there neither is nor can be any dispute among 
Christians, and see what they teach in reason, in re- 
gard to the subject of destiny." 

Mr. Skinner, in ' ' Universalism Illustrated and De- 
fined," says, " The will of God is absolute. The will 
of kings is absolute ; and God is the King of kings 
and IyOrd of lords. He does all things after the coun- 
sel of his own will." Hosea Ballou taught that " It 
is not casting any disagreeable reflections on the Al- 
mighty to say he determined all things for good ; and 
to believe that he superintends all the affairs of the 
universe, not excepting sin, is a million times more to 
the honor of God than to believe he can not, or he 
does not when he can." Mr. Whittemore says, " Man 
can not do what his Maker wills he shall not do, and 
he can not leave undone what his Maker wills he shall 
do."* 

(2) The following quotations from eminent Cal- 
vinists are used by Dr. Thayer as supports to his doc- 



1 p. 41. 

3 " The Philosophy of Universalism." 1866, p. it. 
•4 From " Universalism Not of the Bible," by Rev. I). N. George, pp. 
309, 214, 215. 



396 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

trine : he says, ' 4 Dr. Woods has a good thing on this 
point, which deserves a place here ; " this is the doc- 
trine as explained by Dr. Woods. 1 ' No one can have 
any power except what God gives, and there can be 
no greater absurdity than to suppose that God will 
give to any of his creatures a power which he can 
not control, and which shall in any possible cir- 
cumstances, so come in the way of his adminis- 
tration as actually to prevent him from doing 
what he wills to do. If he is really omnipotent, and 
if all power in creation depends on him, it must be that 
he will do all his pleasure ; that whatever he sees on 
the whole to be the best he will certainly accomplish." 

Dr. Thayer takes the following from Prof. Moses 
Stuart, who is speaking of those who limit the power 
of God : 4< They overlook the omnipotence of that 
Spirit, whose office it is to bow the stubborn will, and 
soften the hearts of the unbelieving. What ! are not 
all things possible with God ? Can he not ' make the 
people willing in the day of his power ? ' 5 Can not he 
who works in men, ' according to the working of his 
mighty power which he wrought in Christ when he 
raised him from the dead,' can he not make the deaf 
to hear, and the blind to see ? Can he not raise the 
dead to life ? Has he not promised to do all this ? 
Has he not often repeated the assurance that he will 
do it ? Has he not done it in numberless instances ? 
Are not ' all hearts in his hand,' and so in it that he 

5 This text — Ps. ex. 3— has been pressed into the Calvinistic service 
quite long enough. It does not teach the doctrine. Dr. T. W. Chambers, 
a pronounced Calvinist, says the sentiment is true and pleasing, but is not 
the meaning of the words. " They refer not to the matter or agency of 
conversion, but the cheerful obedience which the subjects of the priest-king 
renders to his commands." " Homiletic Monthly." Vol. VI., p. 648. See 
also Cowles on " Psalms." "Methodist Quarterly Review." 1873, p. 341. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



397 



can turn them whithersoever he will, even as the 
rivers of water are turned ? Can any resist God's 
will?" 

The following from Dr. Enoch Pond is regarded 
by Dr. Thayer as " conclusive on the point." l< The 
question, therefore, comes to this, Is it impossible for 
God to convert and save all men ? But in what sense 
can this be considered as impossible? Is it incon- 
sistent with the nature of the human mind, and with 
the freedom and accountability of man ? Such a sup- 
position is a priori incredible ; because God made the 
minds of men as well as their bodies — made them free, 
accountable agents — and it is not likely that he would 
give existence to a being which it was impossible for 
him to control. Besides is it not a fact that God 
does control the minds of men, of all men, in 
perfect consistency with their freedom and account- 
ability ? I speak not now of the manner in which this 
is done, whether by a direct efficiency in view of 
motives, or by the mere influence of motives ; the 
fact it is done will not be denied, except by those 
who deny that God executes his purposes and gov- 
erns the world. The Scriptures, too, by necessary 
implication, by direct assertion, and in almost every 
form of representation and expression exhibit the free 
minds of men as subject to the control of him who 
ruleth all. God's control over the free, responsible 
mind is also exhibited in every instance of conversion. 
Every conversion which takes place is the work of 
God's Spirit, accomplished in perfect consistency with 
the nature of the mind, and without any infringement 
of human freedom or accountability. But are not all 
minds constituted essentially alike ? And if it is pos- 



398 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

sible for God to convert one sinner in the manner 
above described, why not two ? why not as many as 
he pleases ? why not all ? " 6 

SECTION II. 

Calvinism and Universalism Substantially Agree Con- 
cerning the Good Uses of Sin and the 
Denial of Freedom. 

Dr. Thayer says, ' ' If there had been no error or sin 
in the world, we should have known nothing of Jesus 
the Christ, that loftiest exhibition of perfected human- 
ity, that single bright star in the mingled firmament 
of earth and heaven, whose light was never dimmed. 

.... And of God, also, if there were no sin, we 
should lose sight of half the glory of his character, 
and of the beautiful and tender relations which he 
sustains to us. ' ' Our author also quotes from Pres- 
ident Kdwards to the effect that, all things considered, 
it is best that sin should exist. 7 

Ballou taught that ' ' What in a limited sense we 
may justly call sin or evil, in an unlimited sense is 
justly called good." 8 Concerning human freedom he 
says, " It is evident that will or choice has no possible 
liberty." According to Mr. Rogers ' ' The notion of 
freewill is a chimera." In speaking of God's will, 
Mr. Skinner says, ' ' He does all things after the 
counsel of his own will. Of course when he made 

6 Dr. Thayer also quotes an extract from a sermon by Wesley, which 
upon the surface seems to agree with the above. livery Arminian knows 
that the meaning of Wesley must have been radically different from that 
of Woods, Stuart and Pond. See " Methodist Quarterly Review," 1872, pp. 
644, 645. 

7 Pages 52, 56, 57, 25, 20. 

,, 8 Christian Spectator," 1833, p. 280. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



399 



man and gave him the power which he possesses, 
he did everything according to his own will. It 
will avail nothing to say man is a moral agent ; for 
why should God give him an agency which would 
defeat his own will ? This would be planning against 
himself. Nothing is more evident than that an 
expected result of a voluntary act proves that it was 
desired. ' ' 9 

Speaking of sorrow and affliction which are in the 
world, Dr. Williamson says, " But these have their 
mission, and become, in their turn, the occasions and 
the sources of our highest and most refined enjoyments. 
Such a thing as evil for its own sake, evil not counter- 
balanced with corresponding good, there is not in this 
world, nor is there the remotest probability that there 
will be in the future. ' ' 1 

These extracts will suffice to show the exact posi- 
tion of Universalism concerning the omnipotence of 
God, the means of sin for the manifestation of his 
glory, and the doctrine of necessity in human actions. 
" Thus the sinful actions of men, being only the legit- 
imate effect of causes which proceed from the author 
of all good, are not, as has so often been supposed, an 
evil of incalculable malignity ; they are only a seem- 
ing evil ; they are evil only to our limited and dark- 
ened understandings : they are evil only to those who 
can not trace out all the tendencies of things, or fore- 
see their final issue." 2 



9 " Universalism Not of the Bible," pp. 214, 309. 

1 " The Philosophy of Universalism," p. 39. 

2 "Christian Spectator," 1833, p. 279. An admirable expose of both 
systems under discussion. 



4-00 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



SECTION III. 

To a Large Extent Universalism is a Reactioji 
Against Calvinism. 

By this I do not mean that all Universalists were 
once Calvinists, nor that all Calvinists are in great 
danger of becoming believers in the salvation of all 
men. Nothing of the kind. Doubtless there have 
been, and now are Universalists who always opposed 
Calvinism. It is also quite probable that some of the 
advocates of universal salvation, have been more or 
less friendly to Arminianism. It is possible that some 
Arminians have accepted Universalism. Such facts I 
desire to recognize. I have no desire to exaggerate the 
defects of Calvinism, nor hide those of Arminianism.. 3 
My meaning is this, Universal bin is the natural re- 
action against the doctrines of Calvinism. Nearly 
every important error has some truth which gives it 
vitality. The truth of Universalism is the Infinite 
Love of God for all his children. This grand, Bible 
doctrine has no place in Calvinism. As there taught 
it is not even the shadow of the truth. The divine 
love is limited to the ' 1 elect, ' ' while the ' ' non-elect ' ' 
who are equally deserving, are left in misery and eter- 
nally condemned for the rejection of that which God 
never meant they should accept. 

Some men may regard this as Scripturally true, but 
the vast majority of mankind never have and never 
will believe the Bible teaches such a conception of him 
whose nature is declared to be Love. In not a few 
instances the reaction has been intense. Misgivings 
have often been keenly felt. Doubts have crowded 



3 Dr. H. W. Thomas of Chicago favors Restorationism 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 4OI 

the mind. The faith of years has gradually disap- 
peared, and, as a historic fact, he who was a strong 
Calvinist — not thinking to re-examine his premises — 
accepts Universalism. This will now be elucidated. 
But before showing whence many of the leaders of 
Universalism have come I wish to speak of the evil 
effects of Calvinism upon New England Congrega- 
tionalism. Says the late Dr. W. W. Patton, of How- 
ard University, " The early ministers were strong Cal- 
vinists of the type now known as Old School. They 
held ideas of the imputation of Adam's sin to his 
posterity, of human inability to all good, of sovereign 
personal election and reprobation, of atonement for 
the elect alone, of the nature of the influence of the 
Holy Spirit, and of the entire passivity of the sinner 
in the new birth, which now are seldom preached 
among us, and are held by few if any of our theolo- 
gians, even such as style themselves Calviuists. There 
was little in the preaching of such doctrines to pro- 
mote revivals of religion, or to secure individual con- 
versions - though the grace of God did secure these 
results from the accompanying gospel truth. There 
was much in them to provoke controversy and to 
secure reaction toward some antagonistic system, 
which, in the swing to the opposite extreme, was 
likely to be unevangelical. And such was the result. 
Rigid Calvinism caused a revulsion, which first took 
form as a cold unevangelical Arminianism, very dif- 
ferent from the Arminianism of the Wesleys ; then 
introduced the half-way covenant, and then developed 
into Unitarianism." 4 

John Murray is generally considered the father of 

4 " The L,ast Century of Congregationalism, pp. 12, 13. 



4-02 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

American Universalism. His ''Life" informs us of 
much concerning his parents and early training. They 
were Calvinists, and young Murray was taught by his 
father " that for any individual, not the elect of God, 
to say of God or to God, ' our Father ' was nothing 
better than blasphemy." The Sabbath is described 

as ' 1 a day much to be dreaded in our family 

the most laborious day in the week." At the age of 
twenty-one or two he was engaged in preaching as a 
Whitefieldian Methodist. Speaking of his views at 
this time he says, ' ' I had connected this doctrine of 
election with the doctrine of final reprobation, not 
considering that, although the first was indubitably a 
Scripture doctrine, the last was not found in, nor 
could be supported by, revelation." Subsequent^ 
he was converted to Universalism by Rev. James 
Relley, of London. As an advocate of this doctrine 
he believed that a part of mankind were elected to be 
saved through Jesus Christ and to enjoy the Christian 
life while on earth. The rest, while they would suffer 
some degree of condemnation, would also finally be 
saved. "He retained high views of Divine sover- 
eignty through life. " 

About the time that Mr. Murray arrived in this 
country (1770) Rev's Adam Streeter and Caleb Rich, 
originally of the Baptist denomination, became pro- 
nounced Universalists and preached in various parts 
of New England. 5 

Klhanan Winchester was originally a Calvinistic 
Baptist. Describing his earlier views, he says he was 
' ' one of the most consistent Calvinists on the continent, 
much upon the plan of Dr. Gill, whom he esteemed 



5 " Methodist Quarterly Review," 1871, p. 445. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 403 

almost as an oracle." In preaching lie was very care- 
ful not to invite all men to come to Jesus, for ' ' if 
provision was made only for a part, he had no warrant 
to call or invite the whole to come and partake." 
This duty he urged only on the "hungry, weary, 
thirsty, heavy laden, such as were without money, 
sensible sinners." 6 

Hosea Ballou at an early age joined a Baptist 
church of which his father was pastor. Walter Bal- 
four was educated in the Scotch Church. Coming to 
America he became a Baptist about 1806, and in 1823 
was a pronounced Universalist. 

Sylvanus Cobb was early educated under the or- 
thodox influence of New England, but he soon became 
an ardent advocate of the doctrine of Universalism. 
Dr. Joseph Huntington graduated at Yale College in 
1762, and was ordained pastor of the First Congrega- 
tional Church, Coventry, Conn., 1763 ; his work 
"Calvinism Improved," which was not published 
until after his death, advocates Universalism. 7 

SECTION IV. 

As Universalism becomes more Biblical, the Fundamental 
Doctrine of Calvinism is Denied. 

The Universalists are improving. Of late years 
their peculiar doctrines have not been so dogmatically 
taught nor their philosophical principles so strenuously 
maintained. 8 As the harsh features of Calvinism are 

3 "Christian Spectator," 1833, p. 277. For a description of Gill's Cal- 
vinism, see Chap. IV. of Part II. 

7 See Note III. at close of this Chapter. 

8 "We feel confident that the last twenty years have witnessed a 
great improvement in the devotional aspects of Universalism."— Rev. G. 
W. Whitney." " Universalist Quarterly," 1872, p. 323. 



404 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

disappearing, there is a gradual abandonment of the 
coarse statements of Universalism. Hence, I shall 
try to show that Universalism abandons its distinct- 
ive tenet — thereby becoming more Scriptural — in the 
proportion as it renounces the fundamental principle 
of Calvinism, the Divine Omnipotence as the prime 
factor in the world's salvation. For the following 
extracts I am indebted to ' ' The Latest Word of Uni- 
versalism ' ' which contains thirteen sermons by as 
many representative Universalist clergymen. I have 
been much pleased with its spirit of candor toward 
opponents and its reverent treatment of the Scriptures. 
Dr. A. G. Gaines writes of " The Divine Nature and 
Procedure." Speaking of God's relation to sin, he 
sa\ T s, " Again, we infer from what we know of God's 
holiness, and of his moral government, and of the law 
written in the consciences of men, that he hates sin 
and can have no concord with it, or with the works it 

prompts God never planned it, nor did he 

ever purpose aught that required sin as a means for 
its accomplishment, or that depended on sin as a 
means to its end. Sin is of God in no proper sense. 
His whole relation to it, and action towards it, is, and 

ever has been antagonism, resistance God is 

hostile to sin ; he has no purposes to serve by it ; 
never gave his consent to it ; forbade it at the first, 
and has steadfastly resisted it ever since ; and he has 
assured us that he can never acce t it, nor become 
reconciled to it." 9 

Speaking of " Sin and its Sequences " Dr. G. H. 
Emerson says, . . . remorse recognizes a responsi- 
bility that can not attach to man : it is the proclama- 



9 Pages 20, 21. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 405 

tion of the will of a Higher Being, and it seems the 
literalness of truth to say it is the expression of God's 
censure." 1 

The following is from ' ' Jesus and the Gospel ' ' by 
Rev. J. Smith Dodge, Jr. : " But sin is man's specialty ; 
and it is so because man alone has self-determining 
power. . . . Man alone can choose, and therefore he 
alone can resist. But when we examine why man, 
having the power to choose, sets his will against the 
will of God (which is the essence of sin), the inquiry 
takes us into unsound depths." 2 

Elucidating the nature of " Repentance, Forgive- 
ness, Salvation," Rev. K. C. Sweetser says, "We 
must work with God, in order that God may work 
with us. As to his part of the process, there is no 
room for uncertainty. His grace is unfailing. Where 
sin abounds, his infinite love much more abounds ; 
and whenever we choose to avail ourselves of it, we 
shall find it sufficient for our needs. He yearns over 
us with an infinite longing for our salvation, and will 
not be satisfied till the whole human family is perfected 
and glorified. . . . So, although his power to save us 
is contingent upon our voluntary obedience to the con- 
ditions of salvation, yet in view of all the facts in the 
case, we can not reasonably doubt that his purpose 
concerning us will at last be fulfilled." 3 

The following from "This Life and the Next," by 
Rev. J. C. Adams, is an admirable presentation of the 
question under consideration. " If the resistance of 
the will to the eternal moral law alienates the heart 



1 Pages 59, 60. 

2 p. 79. 

3 Pages in, 112. 



406 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S TAW 

from God up to and beyond the v gates of Death, the 
eternal laws of moral compensation will inflict suffer- 
ing as long as this alienation lasts. Until the will 
consents to the divine order, there is no deliverance 
from the thralldom of retribution. So that if any soul 
goes into the future unrepentant, we must believe that 
the progress of penalty and discipline goes on, at the 
same time that grace persuades and love invites, until 
the evil heart is overcome." 4 

The Philosophy of Universalism is expounded by 
President E. H. Capen, who declares that man "is 
God's child, and that he has broken God's law. If he 
sins repeatedly, he will be punished repeatedly. No 
amount of penalty can destroy his freedom. He may 
choose to sin as long as he is willing to take sin and 
penalty together. But, whenever he shall be moved 
to a different choice, the way will be open. . . . We 
hold that the sovereignt} r of God will be completely 
vindicated in the ultimate harmony of the moral uni- 
verse. ... It will not do to say that man's freedom 
ma}' defeat the beneficent intentions of the Almighty ; 
for that would be a poor sort of freedom which practi- 
cally dooms men to endless sin. ... Of moral evil, he 
says, " We not only believe in the ' exceeding sinful- 
ness of sin,' but our nature revolts at it ; we loathe it ; 
we feel bound to make war upon it, to wrestle with it, 
and to seek its extermination in ourselves and others. 
We hate it, however, not merely because it is inherently 
hateful, but because God hates it, because it is opposed 
alike b}' his law and his nature, of which his law is the 
expression." 5 



4 p. 165. 

5 Pages 253, 254, 265, 266. 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 



407 



Rev. George Hill says, " All things are possible to 
God within the limits of possibility. Man as such 
must have the attributes of his own nature, else he is 
not man, and no question of moral evil could arise. 
Within his sphere he is free and the arbiter of his joys 
and sorrows. All the evil in the moral universe had its 
birth in the heart of man. We can not say that God 
permits or fosters it for a good purpose for there is no 
good in it. We can only say that God hates it, and 
opposes it, and would prevent it if he could without 
destroying the moral freedom of man." 

Dr. A. J. Patterson says of man's present condition, 
" God does not take pleasure in his falls and bruises, 
physical or moral. These are incidental to his unde- 
veloped and imperfect state. . . . To have made a race 
of beings that could not sin, would have peopled the 
earth with beings entirely unlike ourselves. . . . He 
might have created beings that could not sin, but they 
would not be men." 6 

Dr. Miner says, "It is said, 'God can not save 
man against his will.' It is equally true that God can 
not damn man against his will. Salvation is a condi- 
tion in which human powers co-operate with divine 
grace. The saving of man, therefore, is the bringing 
of his powers into such co-operation. The only thing 
that makes salvation necessary is perversity of will. 
To remove this perversity is to save. ' ' 7 

6 " Universalist Quarterly." 1878, 1880, pp. 53, 54, 282, 284,444. 

t " Bib. Sacra," 1883, p. 498. The distinction is radical. Calvinism 
says Man has no power to resist God. This phase of Universalism affirms 
the power — carries it far into eternity — but postulates the final triumph of 
Divine Love. But I can not so interpret the teachings of Reason and Rev- 
elation. 



408 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 



NOTE III. 

Possibly the reader is conservative. Notwithstand- 
ing the many facts adduced to show that Calvinism 
has greatly aided Universalism, he may object to my 
reasoning and affirm that I am forcing an issue. It 
is, therefore, eminently proper to adduce a few addi- 
tional facts illustrating how the subject is considered 
by those whose ability and candor can not be ques- 
tioned. The following is from Dr. Fitch of New Ha- 
ven fame, forming a part of his celebrated " Review 
of Fisk on Predestination and Election." Although 
somewhat long, it is too good to be abridged. ". . . . 
The Universalist does not (if we rightly judge) de- 
rive his doctrine in the first place from the oracles of 
God, but rather from the attributes of God. The ar- 
gument on which he relies as the real basis of his 
faith is the following : God, as infinitely benevolent, 
must be disposed to prevent sin with all its evils. 
God as omnipotent, can prevent sin in all his moral 
creatures ; God therefore will hereafter prevent all sin ; 
and thus render all his creatures happy forever. 

"The infidel reasons exactly in the same manner, 
and comes to the same conclusion. But, then, he has 
discernment enough to see that the Scriptures contain 
the doctrine of future endless punishment. He, there- 
fore, discards the divine origin of the book, as incul- 
cating a doctrine so obviously false, and inconsistent 
with the perfections of God. 

"As a specimen of atheistical reasoning on this sub- 
ject, a friend has put into our hands a card engraved 
in an attractive style, and said to have been printed 
in New York, and extensively circulated by a club of 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 409 

atheists in that city. It contains the following words, 
' God either wills that evil should exist, or he does 
not. If he wills the existence of evil, where is his 
Goodness? If evil exists against his will, how can 
he be All- Powerful ? And if God is both good and 
omnipotent, where is evil ? Who can answer this ? ' 

" Now it is manifest, that these several conclusions 
of the universalist, the infidel and the atheist, are all 
derived from substantially the same premises. If the 
premises are admitted to be true, the conclusion fol- 
lows with all the force of absolute demonstration. 
The premises are briefly, that the permanent existence 
of evil is inconsistent with the goodness and the 
power of God. Hence the atheist infers, in view of 
existing evil and the want of evidence that it will ever 
end, that there is no omnipotent, benevolent being — 
there is no God. The universalist and the infidel 
maintain the eternal existence of evil to be inconsist- 
ent with the perfections of God, and hence infer that 
ultimately all evil will be excluded from the system ; 
the one explaining away the plainest declarations of 
the Bible, and the other denying the divine origin of 
the book. 

" Here, then, the "advocate of truth is bound to show 
that there is a fallacy in these premises. Where then 
does the fallacy lie ? The premises rest on two attri- 
butes of God, his power and his benevolence. As to 
his power, the argument assumes that God can, by 
his omnipotence, exclude sin, and its consequent suf- 
fering, from a moral system. Those who admit this 
assumption have therefore no plea left for the divine 
benevolence, except to assert that ' sin is the neces- 
sary means of the greatest good,' and that for this rea- 



410 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

son, it is introduced into our system, and will always 
be continued there, by a Being of infinite benevolence. 
But can this be proved ? Is this supposition consist- 
ent with the sincerity of God as a lawgiver, the excel- 
lence of his law, the known nature and tendency of 
sin and holiness, and the unqualified declarations of 
the divine word, that 'sin is the abominable thing 
which his soul hateth, ' that he ' would have all men 
be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, ' etc. 
Can this be consistent with his actually preferring the 
existence of all the sin in the system to holiness in its 
stead ? For ourselves, we must say, that we regard 
the success of any attempt to make men believe this, 
as utterly and forever hopeless. Our confident antici- 
pation is, that universalism, infidelity and atheism in 
this land and through the world, will only go on to 
new triumphs, so long as their overthrow is left to de- 
pend on the truth of the position, that God prefers 
sin to holiness, in any of his moral creatures. 

' ' We are thrown back then to consider the other 
branch of this argument, viz., the assumption that 
God as omnipotent can prevent all moral evil in a 
moral system. Is not here the fallacy ? We know 
that a moral system necessarily implies the existence 
of free agents, with the power to sin in despite of all 
opposing power. This fact sets human reason at 
defiance in every attempt to prove that some of these 
agents will not use that power and actually sin. There 
is, at least, a possible contradiction involved in the 
denial of this : and it is no part of the prerogative of 
omnipotence to be able to accomplish contradictions. 
But if it be not inconsistent with the true idea of om- 
nipotence, to suppose that God can not prevent all sin 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 4H 

in a moral system, then neither is it inconsistent with 
his goodness that he does not prevent it ; since sin in 
respect to his power of prevention, may be incidental 
to the existence of that system which infinite goodness 
demands. It is, then, in view of this groundless 
assumption, concerning omnipotence, that we see the 
reasoning of the universalist, the infidel and the 
atheist, to be the merest paralogism, or begging of the 
question. The utter impossibility of proving their 
main principle, is so obvious that they can be made to 
see it, and we hope, 'to acknowledge it. At any rate, 
until this mode of refutation be adopted, we despair 
of the subversion of their cause by reasoning. By 
that mode of argument, which assumes that God pre- 
fers sin to holiness, the main pillar of their conclusion, 
viz., that God can prevent all moral evil in a moral 
system, is conceded to them, and thus they are only 
confirmed in their delusions. 

1 ' When shall the defenders of the truth learn the 
difference between scriptural doctrines and groundless 
theories ? When will they see, that a zeal for the one, 
leads them to attach truth to the other, and thus inad- 
vertently to prepare the way for the worst of errors ? ' ' 1 

Speaking of the popular doubts concerning the 
doctrine of future endless punishment, Dr. John P. 
Gulliver, of Andover Seminary says, ' ' What then is 
the practical lesson which such facts as these teach 
us ? It is plainly that if we expect men, especially un- 
converted men, if even we expect a large class of the 
best minds among Christian men, to accept the clear 
teachings of the Bible on this subject, ' without de- 
falcation or fraud,' as the lawyers say, we must go 

i "Christian Spectator." 1831, pp. 616, 617. 



412 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

back of their faith in the words of the Bible, and plant 
our doctrine in the deep soil of their original moral 
convictions — in their sense of justice, in their love 
of law, in their intuitions of right ; in their percep- 
tions of the absolute and unchangeable necessities of 
moral government, in their knowledge of the nature 
of free, moral agency, in their comprehensive views of 
God's plans in permitting and removing sin and 
suffering. Till this is done, the utmost which all 
appeals to the strong language of the Bible can accom- 
plish, will be to produce a kind of distressing bewilder- 
ment, and the highest expression of faith will be — 1 1 
do not understand it. It is a dark and horrible 
mystery.' .... 

1 1 But the influence of this confusion of thought is, 
of course, much more positive upon minds which have 
never experienced the grace of God. They have no 
counteracting testimony coming from the daily com- 
munion of the heart with a loving Father. They take 
the epicurean dilemma. ' God either would have pre- 
vented evil andcould not — then where is his power ? or 
he could have prevented evil and would not — then 
where is his benevolence ? ' And they conclude from 
it that there is no God, or that there is no evil but the 
necessary means of good, and that final good is to be 
educed from all evil. In other words, they either be- 
come Atheists, denying the infinity of God, or Uni- 
versalists, denying the eternity of evil. Of the two, 
it is easy to see that the Atheist occupies the only 
tenable ground. For he who affirms that God can not 
secure the highest final good without using evil as its 
temporary means, limits his power just as truly as he 
who affirms that he can not secure the highest good 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURK. 413 

without permitting evil as its necessary concomitant. 
The fact that the means are temporary , while the con- 
comitant is eternal, does not change the fact that, in 
both cases, God has been proved unable to secure good 
without any admixture of evil : hence, according to 
the epicurean premise, he is not omnipotent ; hence, 
there is no God. 

' ' With these facts before us, we can not wonder if a 
large class of minds refuse to accept the Christian's 
faith, if it must be accompanied with the theologian's 
doubts ; and have sought most eagerly for some posi- 
tion in thought which should not array the moral nat- 
ure which God has given them in hostility against 
God himself. 

"All these attempts must, as a matter of course, 
have, as a common element, the placing of some limit- 
ation of some kind upon God's power to prevent sin. 
There is no possible escape from the epicurean dilem- 
ma unless we assume that the absolute prevention of 
sin by an act of power in a being free to sin, is a con- 
tradiction in terms — is an impossibility ; that such 
prevention is outside the range and domain of power, 
as much so as the requirement to construct a circle 
from right angles would be. The whole strength of 
skepticism, in all its forms and degrees, consists in 
slipping in somewhere, in its reasoning, the absurd as- 
sumption that God can necessitate the choice of a be- 
ing endowed with freedom to choose uncontrolled by 
necessity. 

" On the other hand, the whole force of any argu- 
ment of Christian philosophy, in vindication of the 
present moral order of the universe, will be ultimately 
found in the axiom that omnipotence consists simply 



414 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

in the power to do whatever is in its nature possible, 
not what is impossible. In other words, there is in 
the whole argument the assumption that God is only 
bound to prevent all the evil he can, and yet create a 
system which, on the whole, will produce more good 
than any other. If a system containing evil, is seen 
to be better in its total results of holiness and happi- 
ness, than any system of a lower grade which excludes 
evil, then God is vindicated. But on no other hypoth- 
esis can such a vindication be made The 

fault must be in our human philosophy, not in the 
Divine theology. When we have learned to give a 
proper definition to power, and do not demand of Om- 
nipotence the performance of impossibilities ; when we 
have learned otherwise, to discriminate between things 
that differ, when we have learned to discard prejudice, 
and to subject all our early theological notions, and 
our habitual definitions ol words, and our stereotyped 
modes of thought to the test of reason and conscience, 
and the teaching of God, the church will, for the first 
time in her history, look forth upon an unbelieving, 
unconvicted, rebellious world, 'fair as the moon, clear 
as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners.' " 2 

The following by Dr. George P. Fisher is an ad- 
mirable presentation of the historic fact that Calvinism 
has prepared the way for Universalism : 

" Strict Calvinism was a symmetrical and coherent 
system. It was constructed from the theological point 
of view. The starting point was God and his eternal 
purpose. The end was made to be the manifestation 
of his love and his justice, conceived of as co-ordinate. 
The salvation of some, and the condemnation of others, 



2 An Introductory Essay in " Law and Penalty Endless," pp. 14-17. 2 3- 



AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 415 

are the means to this end. The motive of redemption 
is love to the elect, for whom all the arrangements of 
Providence and grace are ordered. The capstone was 
placed upon the system by the supralapsarians, who 
followed Calvin's strong language in the ' Institutes ' 
(but not elsewhere, especially not in his Comment- 
aries), and made the fall and sin of mankind — like 
creation itself, the object of an efficient decree — means 
to the one supreme End ; for if mercy and righteous- 
ness are to be exerted in the salvation and condemna- 
tion of sinners, a world of sinners must first exist. 

' ' There was rebellion against this system. Not to 
speak of the different theology of the Lutherans — in 
the French Calvinistic school of Saumur, wherever 
Arminianism prevailed, in the modified Calvinism of 
the New England churches, it was asserted that in the 
1 intention of love,' Christ died for all, that God's love 
extends over all, in the sense that he desires them to 
be saved, yearns toward them, and offers them help. 

"This mode of thought has more affinity to the 
Greek anthropology than has rigid Calvinism, or its 
Augustinian prototype. The teleological point of 
view is less prominent ; it stands in the background. 
The universal love and pity of God, the broad design 
of the atonement, are the central points. 

' ' The more rigid Calvinism often protested against 
this modification of the system : it considered the 
whole theodicy imperiled by it ; it saw in it a drift 
and tendency towards other innovations subversive of 
the system. For if this universal, yearning love is at 
the basis of redemption, will it not be suggested that 
this love will not fail of its end ? Will the heart of 
God be disappointed of its object ? Will the Almighty 



41 6 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD 

be baffled by the creaturely will ? If Christ died for 
all, will he be ' satisfied ' with anything short of the 
recovery of all ? 

• ' As a matter of historical fact, belief in Restoration 
and kindred doctrines are seen to spring, in different 
quarters, in the wake of the mitigated form of the- 
ology to which we have referred. Not that such be- 
liefs are logically required. All a priori reasoning 
must be subject to the correction of experience. 
There is a terrible reign of sin, though all sin is con- 
trary to the will of God ; there is a development of 
sinful character, a hardening of the heart, a persistent 
resistance — ' how often would I . . . . but ye would 
not ' ; ' woe unto thee, Chorazin, woe unto thee, Beth- 
saida : ' there is a stern, tragic side to nature and to 
human life. We stand within a sphere where results 
are not worked out by dint of power, but where free- 
dom, under moral law, with all the peril, as well as 
possibility of good, which freedom involves, is an 
essential attribute of our being." 3 The " Andover 
Controversy" is another link in this historic chain. 
Dr. K. A. Park has demonstrated that according to 
the intent of the founders of Andover Theological 
Seminary its funds must be used to promulgate Cal- 
vinistic doctrine. 4 The tendency of the "New De- 
parture " is certainly toward Universalism. 



3 " New Knglander," 1878. Art. " The Doctrine of Future Punish- 
ment," pp. 192, 193. 

4 " The Associate Creed of Andover Theological Seminary." 



INDEX. 



Alexander, W. L, 14 

Alexander . . 23, 37, 48, 374 

Aikman 14, 127 

Augustine . . . 17, 31, 41 
Adams, 27, 49, 6r, 172, 200-204 
Auburn Declaration . . 38, 46 
Atwater . 28, 58, 69, 220, 390 
Alford . . . 76, 83, 85, 146, 

242, 292, 293, 295 

Aquinas 118 

Alting -119 

Aiken 387 

Adams, J. C 405 

Beza 18 

Baxter 20, 121 

Breckenridge . . .25, 37, 

48, 214, 342 

Baker 36 

Bates 31, 321 

Barnes . . 49, 51, 58, 65, 

77, 148, 212, 294, 364 
Boardman, Prof. G. N . . .70 

Berthold 118 

Blackburn, Prof. W. M. . 124 
Briggs* Prof. C. A. . . .125 

Brown, A. W 191 

Barrows 230 

Bushnell 246 

Bailey 274 

Bledsoe .288 

Bloomfield 294 

Brown, D 295 

Burnett 356 

Ballou 395, 398, 403 

Balfour 403 

Chalmers . . .28, 65, 91, 

210, 337, 343 
Calvin . . . 31, 41, 96, 118, 

170, 208, 325, 354 



Charnock . . . 20, 32, 43, 

219, 281, 365, 374 

Crakanthorp 19, 42 

Cochran 57, 371 

Cook, Prof. J. . . 13, 107, 378 

Christlieb 76, 389 

Cowles . . . 155, 226, 230, 

235, 237, 241, 301, 366 
Causes secondary but dim- 
ly recognized in O. T. . 229 

Crosby 243, 392 

Crane 253 

Cobb 276, 280-289 

Cousin 333 

Chambers 396 

Cobb, S 403 

Capen 406 

Dort, Synod of . . 18, 41, 119 
D wight . . . . 21, 34, 53. 379 
Dick . 22, 36, 45, 62, 129, 
217, 325, 33i, 

335, 352 

Duffield . . .26, 38, 129, 362 

Day 38 

Dabney .... 72, 79, 86-100 
Dorner . . 101, 102, 345, 370 
Delitzsch .... 76, 103, 389 
Death, spiritual meaning 

of 149-157 

Dodge 405 

Edwards . 27, 44, 64, 335- 

340, 346, 374 
Emmons . 21, 35, 44, 58, 

123, 172, 187, 324, 342 
Emerson, G. H 404 

Fisher, Prof. G. P. . .15, 

39i. 4*4 

Faber 16 

Fuller 20 



417 



INDEX. 



Fitch, 91, 408 

Fiske, D. T. ... 24, 37, 356 
Future Probation . . 101-109 

Fletcher 161 

Fairchild 254 

Fausset 300 

Gottschalk 17 

Griffin, 22, 34, 44, 70, 124, 

129, 171, 327-329, 363, 381 

Green 22, 35, 44 

Gill 24, 215 

Gregg 67 

Gess 238 

Godet 294 

Gaines 404 

Gulliver, Prof. J. P. . . .411 

Hodge, Charles, 14, 38, 50, 
78, 82, 113, 130, 147, 
152-156, 174, 241, 

299> 326,348, 35i 

Helvetic Second Confession, 

18 

Hopkins, S. 21, 34, 45, 322, 

355. 374, 379 
Hodge, A. A. 28, 39, 50, 

175. 192-199, 384 

Howe , 22, 31, 173 

Hall, R 24 

Hickok . . .40, 229, 275, 364 

Hallam 122 

Hoyt 126 

Hanna 116 

Hopkins, Mark 167 

Henry 209 

Harrison 209 

Hagenbach 349 

Hopkins, S. M 349 

Haven, J 388 

Huntington 403 

Hill 407 

Infant Salvation . . . 106-109 
Infralapsarianism .... 349 

Jenkyns 245 

Jenks 294 

Krauth 113 

Kendall 181 



Keith 266 

Kendrick 306 

Kant 381 

Killen, Prest 390 

Lawrence .... 24, 289, 363 
Lange . . 77, 164, 165, 312-315 

Lacroix 267 

Leibnitz 359 

Luther 97 

Mason 23 

Musgrave . . . . 23, 35, 219 

Milner 61, 174 

Miley, Prof. John .... 101 

Munger 102 

Martyr 119 

Man now in God's image, 156 

Mozlev 211 

Murphy, Prof. J. G. . . . 236 

MacKnight 241 

Martensen 248 

McCabe . . 249, 267-276, 371 

Meyer 293, 296, 311 

Melancthon 325 

McCosh . . 333, 335, 359, 389 

Murray 401 

Miner 407 

Neander 79, 146 

New Departure 416 

Olshausen . . . 232, 237, 

297, 303-306 

Pictet 26, 37, 45, 216 

Porter 34 

Pascal 167 

Probation, Principles of a 

just 101-109 

Park 234, 416 

Parkhurst 319 

Pond 397 

Patton 401 

Patterson 407 

Rice 49, 80, in, 129 

Riddle, Prof. . . 165, 314-318 

Rothe 248-267 

Reid 333 

Row 391 



INDEX. 



419 



Rogers 39 8 

Rich 402 

Smith, W. D. 25, 37, 61, 

173, 219 

Smith, S. S 26, 355 

Sladen 43, 68, 170 

Smith, H. B. . . . 51, 61, 324 

Symington 68 

Secret Will of God . . 69, 70 

Smyth 103 

Swing 113 

Skinner, Prof. T. H . . .146 
Synergism, a Scriptural 

Doctrine ... . i47- I 5 8 
Shedd, Prof. W. G. T. . . 188 
Stuart . . 235, 297, 307-310, 396 
Schaff, Prof. P. 242, 315- 

318, 373 

Supralapsarianism .... 349 

Shakespeare 377 

Skinner 395, 39 8 

Streeter 402 

Sweetser 4°5 

Tobey 10, 48, 147 

Toplady, 20, 33, 44*69, 170 

218, 329-33 1 

Tyler 49, 210 

Tyndall, Prof. 66 

Twisse '. ... 121 

Taylor, N. W 129 

Tulloch 156, 231 



Thayer, T. B 394, 39$ 

Thomas 400 

Venema, 27, 36, 46, 63, 172, 

184-192, 209, 326 

Wesley, John 4, 398 

Westminster Con. of Faith, 
19, 33, 42, 57, 96, 

107, 115 

Williard 20, 32, 46 

Witherspoon 21 

Wood, J . . 24 

Withington 26 

Woods, L. 26, 39, no, 173, 396 

Wilson 43 

Watts . . 62, 122, 176-184, 326 
Wright, Prof. G. F. . 107, 364 
Whedon, 108, 160, 222, 242, 

258, 286, 287 
Westminster Assembly, 

120-122 

Woodbridge 212 

Weisse 248 

Whately 261 

Watson 288 

Webster, D 377 

Wuttke 390 

Williamson 395, 399 

Whittemore 395 

Winchester 402 

Whitney 403 

Xavier 134 

Zanchius 118 



